Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010248072025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./264/2025 BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL AND 2 ORS. KOKRAJHAR, P.O. KOKRAJHAR, DIST. KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN 783370 2: BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR PO-KOKRAJHAR DIST-KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN-783370 REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR ASSAM. 3: PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR ASSAM VERSUS MD JAN MOHAMMAD TALUKDAR S/O- LATE SHAJAHAN ALI TALUKDAR, R/O- HOUSE NO 1, SARUDHAR GOGOI PATH, OPPOSITE TO LITTLE FLOWER SCHOOL, HATIGAON, P.O. HATIGAON, GUWAHATI 38, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : NIRMALA CHOUDHURY, MR. A KHOUND,MS. N CHOUDHURY,MS. B BHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 02/12/2025 1. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the review petitioner prays for a review of the order dated 10.04.2023, passed in WP(C) 1888/2023, wherein the review petitioner had been directed to pay the outstanding bill amount of Rs.27,60,000/- within a period of three months. 2. The learned counsel submits that pursuant to the order, Rs.5 Lakh had been paid to the writ petitioner on 13.03.2025, vide Cheque No.0607545. 3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the BTC authorities are following the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tamsher Ali and others Vs. State of Assam and Ors., reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1 (FB), for payment of contractual dues to various persons in a chronological order, as per the liabilities list made by the review petitioner. She submits that the petitioner’s name appears in Serial No. 115 of the liabilities list and as such, he will be paid as per his turn. 4. The learned counsel submits that the direction of this Court to pay the admitted amount within three months would cause problem in the disbursal of contractual dues to other contractors, who are to be given their dues as per their seniority in the liabilities list in terms of the decision of Tamsher Ali (supra). 5. She accordingly prays that the impugned order dated 10.04.2023 passed in WP(C) 1888/2023 should be reviewed and modified, so that payment of contractual dues to the writ petitioner could be made in terms of the decision of Tamsher Ali (supra). 6. This Court has noticed that the impugned order directing payment of the contractual dues of the petitioner, amounting to Rs.27,60,000/-, had been made on 10.04.2023. However, the present review petition has been filed more than 2½ years later, i.e, on 07.11.2025. It is surprising that despite 3 months period being given to the review petitioner, to pay the contractual dues of the writ petitioner, the same has not been done Page No.# 3/3 even after 2½ years. 7. The issue of payment of contractual dues in terms of Tamsher Ali(supra) does not appear to have been followed by the respondent, keeping in view the fact that Rs.5 lakhs had apparently been given to the writ petitioner on 13.03.2025. 8. On a query made to the review petitioners’ counsel as to the serial number of the contractor to whom contractual dues have been paid as per the liabilities list prepared by the BTC, the learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that the respondent is at Sl. No. 115 of the said list. 9. This Court was of the tentative view that the issue raised by the review petitioners may be considered by this Court, if the review petitioners deposit Rs. 10 lakhs in the Registry of this Court. Accordingly, Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the review petitioners had taken steps for depositing Rs. 10 lakhs in the Registry of this Court. However, the said proposal mooted by this Court has not been accepted by the respondent, inasmuch as, the respondent wants the entire amount in terms of the order dated 10/04/2023 passed in WP(C) 1888/2023. 10. On considering the grounds for review made by the review petitioners, this Court finds that no ground for review has been made out by the review petitioners, especially when Rs. 5 lakhs has already been given to the writ petitioner on 13/03/2025. 11. In view of the reasons stated above, the review petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant