Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26278 (GAU)

VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION FOR SOCIAL UPLIFTMENT (VASU) v. STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.

WP(C)/4314/2018 · 2025-11-23

Devashis Baruah

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010139642018 2025:GAU-AS:15972 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4314/2018 VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION FOR SOCIAL UPLIFTMENT (VASU) A SOCIETY REGD UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT AND REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SHABNAM MOHANRAJ, W/O- M MOHANRAJ, R/O- B-602, SUBHAM ENCLAVE, LAKHIMINAGAR PATH, HATIGAON, GUWAHATI- 06, DIST- KAMRUP(M) VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DEPTT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES ASSAM HENGRABARI HEALTH COMPLEX HENGRABARI ROAD HENGRABARI GHY- 36 3:THE ASSAM STATE AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY REP. BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR KHANAPARA GUWAHATI- 781022 4:THE ADDITIONAL PROJECT DIRECTOR ASSAM STATE AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY KHANAPARA GUWAHATI- 781022 5:THE JOINT DIRECTOR(TI) ASSAM STATE AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY KHANAPARA Page No.# 2/4 GUWAHATI- 781022 6:FINANCE CUM ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER NATIONAL AIDS CONTROL ORGANISATION BELTOLA ROAD BANPHOOL PATH GUWAHATI- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.P. Sarmah, Sr. Advocate Ms. A. Deka, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Nayak, Addl. A.G. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 24.11.2025 Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. A. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Additional Advocate General appears on behalf of all the respondents. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a direction for payment of the outstanding amount of Rs. 7,64,676/- due and payable to the petitioner for the works executed by it in terms with “Targeted Intervention Project for Injecting Drug Users (TIP for IDU) under Project ID No. IDU03” allotted by the respondent No. 3 during the financial year 2013- 2014 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the delayed caused in making the payment. Page No.# 3/4 3. The respondent No. 3 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein at paragraph No. 5, it has been categorically mentioned that the petitioner was granted a contract for Targeted Intervention Project till March, 2013. Duration of the agreement was clearly stated in the Agreement copy and the Performance Bond executed with the petitioner that “The Agreement shall remain in Force from 01.10.2012 till 31.03.2013, unless terminated Earlier in accordance with the provision of this Agreement or in the event the period is extended through mutually agreed amendment to this Agreement”. It was further mentioned in the said paragraph that there was no question of further claim by the petitioner for the next financial year i.e. from 2013-2014 as State AIDS Control Society had no Contract Grant Agreement with the Grantee. 4. Mr. R.P. Sarmah, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner however submitted that though there was no written agreement entered into by and between the parties, however, the petitioner was asked to depute its Project Managers to attend a training programme and thereupon the petitioner’s services were taken and as such, the petitioner was entitled to the said amount. 5. It is the opinion of this Court that as no written agreement was entered into by and between the petitioner as well as the Page No.# 4/4 respondents for the period from 2013-2014 and further the respondents have categorically denied of having entered into any such agreement, it would not be proper on the part of this Court to enter into the arena of disputed question of facts and further, as to whether, the petitioner performed such works. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition for which, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 6. Liberty however is given to the petitioner to approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction, and taking into account that the petitioner have been diligently and bona fidely pursuing the present proceedings, the period from 25.06.2018 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation. JUDGE Comparing Assistant