Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010015712022 2025:GAU-AS:16592 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/554/2022 M/S DRISHTI ENTERPRISE AND ANR REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI DHRUBAJYOTI BHAGAWATI, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT APURVA APARTMENT, APURVA SINGHA LANE, RAJGARH-RGB LINK ROAD, GUWAHATI-781003, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM 2: DHRUBAJYOTI BHAGAWATI S/O- SRI NAGENDRA NATH BHAGAWATI R/O- APURVA APARTMENT APURVA SINGHA LANE RAJGARH-RGB LINK ROAD GUWAHATI-781003 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 10 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SPORTS AND YOUTH WELFARE, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM SPORTS AND YOUTH WELFARE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE SPORTS AUTHORITY OF ASSAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY ASSAM 4:THE SECRETARY SPORTS AUTHORITY OF ASSAM RUDRA SINGHA SPORTS COMPLEX SUPER MARKET DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 5:THE DIRECTOR OF SPORTS AND YOUTH WELFARE ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. Page No.# 2/7 6:THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PWD (BUILDING AND NATIONAL HIGHWAYS) DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 7:THE CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D. (BUILDING) ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003. 8:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D. (ELECTRICAL) ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003. 9:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER P.W.D. GUWAHATI ELECTRICAL CIRCLE FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI-781001. 10:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. GUWAHATI ELECTRICAL DIVISION CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003. 11:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. GUWAHATI ELECTRICAL DIVISION CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K NAIR, MR R SINGHA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MISS T DAS (R-3,4),MR. I GOGOI (R-3,4),MR. A K RAY (R-3,4),SC, PWD BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 02.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. R. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. K. Ray, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. M. Chetia, Page No.# 3/7 learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The present writ petition is the second round of litigation initiated by the petitioner. The initial writ petition being WP(C) No. 219/2020 had been disposed of by an order dated 11.08.2021. 3. The facts leading to the institution of the earlier writ petition has been recorded in the order itself and the same are reproduced hereinbelow for an easy reference:- “The petitioner was awarded with the work arising out of NIT No. CE/BLD/ELECT/15/2001/195 dated 16.9.2016 Issued by the Addi. Chief Engineer PWD (Electrical) for renovation/up-gradation/ construction of S. S. Stadium, Sarusajal Guwahati to improve the venue to the FIFA STANDARD for holding under 17 FIFA World Cup-2017. Amongst various works repairing and providing materials of 4 nos. of high mast with operating panel board at IGAS S. S. Stadium during the FIFA under 17 World Cup were required to be installed. It is submitted that the petitioner completed the said work and to that effect the Executive Engineer, PWD certified and the summary of works stated therein is extracted hereinbelow: “Summary of works: Repairing of 4 nos. Sports High Masts including replacement of 2.00 KW MH Bellast, 2.060 KW MH Lamp, Ignitor, Condenser, Repairing of ACB Incomer LT Panel Board, replacement of copper cable etc induding engagement Technical Manpower for operation during the Event of Unde 17 FIFA World Cup, 2017 at Guwahati" In response to the said completion certificate, the Secretary Sports Authority of Assam requested the Executive Engineer, PWD, Guwahati Electrical Division to hand over all the old fittings in respect of 4 nos. Sports High Masts lighting system as hereinabove referred in the Summary of works. The said old fittings were required in order to release the outstanding dues to the petitioner, It is submitted by Mr. Nair, learned Senior Counsel that the total value of the works completed as per the certificate of Electrical Engineer, PWD amounted to Rs. 40,43,944/-Out of the said amount, the respondent No. 3 released an amount of Rs. 23,52,696/-. The said amount was released way back in the year 2017. The left over amount as submitted, is yet to be paid to the petitioner alongwith the security deposit which the petitioner deposited. Having not released the said amount even after much persuasion to the respondent the petitioner is before this court seeking for an appropriate direction to the concerned authority.” Page No.# 4/7 4. This Court had disposed of the said writ petition by directing the petitioner to file a representation afresh before the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 11 seeking his claim to the dues as made in the writ petition, whereafter, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were required to take necessary assistance of Executive Engineer, PWD, Guwahati Electrical Division and thereafter, after hearing the petitioner, the respondents were required to dispose of the representation within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of the said representation. It was further provided in the order that in addition to the assistance of the Executive Engineer, PWD Guwahati Electrical Division, the completion certificate of the Executive Engineer along with the Salvage report and the value assessed therein should also be taken into consideration. 5. The petitioner had thereafter, filed the representation on 19.08.2021 and by a communication dated 28.09.2021, the petitioner was invited to attend the hearing on 29.09.2021, in connection with his prayer for release of dues amount of Rs. 16,91,248/- in connection with the work executed. The petitioner attended the respondents’ office on 29.09.2021 and by an order dated 08.10.2021, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent authorities, holding him entitled to be paid a total admissible bill value of Rs. 4,88,802/- along with the security deposit of Rs. 1,17,635/-. The petitioner accepted the payment under protest and has approached this Court now, with a grievance that the order dated 08.10.2021 deserves interference of this Court. 6. Mr. R. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the calculation made by the respondents, whereby they arrived at a total cost of Rs. 28,41,498/- relatable to the work executed has been done so without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to raise objections to the same. 7. Mr. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that records would reveal that the PWD had calculated the value of the old accessories (spare parts) of light fitting etc., which is available at Page No. 95 of Page No.# 5/7 the writ petition, to show that the calculation of scrap value was approximately Rs. 5,460/-. He has further referred to the said calculation to show that there were no other scrap value of any of the old fittings and therefore, he submits that the calculation arrived at by the respondent authorities are without any basis and that the petitioner was required to be paid the full amount of the bill since the work completion certificate was also issued to him with regard to the work. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, has referred to the order dated 08.10.2021 and submits that in compliance with the order of this Court, the petitioner was afforded opportunity of being heard and after hearing the matter from his side, the decision to pay the amount of Rs. 4 Lakh and odd, had been arrived at by the respondents. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that when the petitioner had been afforded the opportunity of raising grievances against the decision arrived at by the respondent authorities, this writ petition does not require to be entertained in its present form. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents has also referred to the Arbitration Clause, submitting that since there is a provision for arbitration, the present writ petition is not required to be entertained. 11. This Court has gone through the materials on record and also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the contesting parties. 12. It is an admitted position that the Executive Engineer, PWD, Guwahati Electrical Division had issued a work completion certificate in favour of the petitioner and it is also an admitted position that the Executive Engineer, PWD, Guwahati Electrical Division, had made an assessment of the value of the old accessories in relation to the work executed by the petitioner. It was in that view of the matter that this Court had directed, on the earlier occasion, that while taking a decision in the claim of the petitioner, the respondent authorities would be required to take the necessary assistance of the Executive Engineer, PWD, and Page No.# 6/7 also to take into consideration of the completion certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD Guwahati Electrical Division along with the Salvage report and the value assessed therein. 13. In the understanding of this Court, the petitioner was required to be given an opportunity of being heard by the respondent authorities, which would be with the assistance of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Guwahati Electrical Division, before a decision was arrived at regarding the amount to which the petitioner would be entitled. 14. A perusal of the impugned order dated 08.10.2021, reveals two factors. Firstly, that the Members of the meeting had assessed the total value of the new fittings against the traced old replacement materials and calculated the total cost to be Rs. 28,41,498/- and the present payable amount was calculated as Rs. 4,88,802/-, which was decision was arrived at in the absence of the petitioner. The fact remains that the petitioner was not made a part of the said meeting and even if the assistance of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Guwahati Electrical Division, had been taken while coming to the aforesaid decision, it is obvious that the petitioner was not invited to participate in the deliberations of the meeting and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner has been denied effective opportunity of hearing before the respondents came to a decision as regards the entitlement of the petitioner. 15. 15. Secondly, the order dated 08.10.2021 does not refer to the work completion certificate and the Salvage report issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD Guwahati Electrical Division, which required to be taken into consideration by the respondent No. 3, while coming to a decision. The order dated 08.10.2021 also reflects that the petitioner was called “for a hearing on the matter from his side about the decision taken in the meeting held on 18.09.2021”. This, in the view of this Court displays that the petitioner was, at best, afforded a post decisional hearing, which does not suffice the requirements of effective hearing in Page No.# 7/7 the circumstances of the present case. 16. In view of the conclusions arrived at hereinabove, the order dated 18.10.2021 is set aside. The respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 11 are now required to take fresh decision on the representation field by the petitioner regarding his claim, which decision shall be arrived at only after giving the petitioner a due opportunity of participating in the deliberations, which would be done with the assistance of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Guwahati Electrical Division. Further, as required by the earlier order of this Court, the work completion certificate and the Salvage report shall also be taken into account. The claims made by the petitioner in his different bills and the calculation arrived at by the respondent No. 3 with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner shall be done in a manner which would reflect the mode and manner in which the calculations in connection with the claims and the counter-claims are considered. 17. This Court notices that the work has been executed in the year 2018 itself and already there was an earlier round of litigation. In such a view of the matter, the respondents are directed to complete the entire process of consideration of the claim of the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 18. In case, the petitioner is found entitled to any amount, the same shall be paid to him within a period of 60 days thereafter. 19. Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant