Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010256392023 2025:GAU-AS:14742 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6692/2023 DILIP HUZURI SON OF LATE HARI NATH HUZURI, RESIDENT OF MEGHMOLAR APARTMENT, FLAT NO. 202, ZOO TINIALI, SURAJIT GOGOI PATH, GUWAHATI, P.S.- GEETANAGAR, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN- 781024. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, PIN- 110001. 2:THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ENTREPRENERUSHIP (IEE) AN AUTONOMOUS ORGANISATION UNDER THE MINISTRY OF SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP GOVT. OF INDIA HAVING ITS HEADQUARTER AT LALMATI BASISTHA CHARIALI 37 NH BYPASS GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781029. 3:THE DIRECTOR INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP (IEE) Page No.# 2/5 LALMATI BASISTHA CHARIALI GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781029. 4:THE JYOTIRGAMAYA WELFARE SOCIETY A REGISTERED SOCIETY UNDER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT XXI OF 1860 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI NABAJYOTI DEKA HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HOUSE NO. 17 SANGHATI PATH KAILASH NAGAR BELTOLA GUWAHATI IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781028. 5:THE BRANCH MANAGER INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED HEAD OFFICE- S.S. ROAD LAKHTOKIA GUWAHATI IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781001 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. Hatimuria, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. R. Devi, CGC : Mr. S. Ali, Standing Counsel Date of Hearing : 31.10.2025 Date of Judgment : 31.10.2025 Page No.# 3/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. J. Hatimuria, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mrs. R. Devi, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1, 2 and 3. I have also heard Mr. S. Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.4. 2. The Petitioner herein has approached this Court on the ground that the Respondent Authorities even after the completion of the work to the satisfaction of the Respondent Authorities have not returned the performance security money of an amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. 3. From the materials on record, it is seen that the Petitioner was issued a work order on 11.01.2021 for the purpose of Civil Construction of the Common Facility Centre (CFC) of Chenga Traditional Dress Making & Embroidery Cluster, Chenga, Barpeta at an amount of Rs.31,92,236/-. At Clause 4 of the said work order, it is stipulated what is the Defect Liability Period. In terms with Sub-Clause (c) of Clause 4, it is seen that the Defect Liability Period is 180 days or full a rainy season whichever occurs later from the date of handing over the constructed asset. 4. The Petitioner claims that the Petitioner had handed over the site on 01.02.2022 and thereupon, the 180 days period elapsed on 30.07.2022. However, after the Defect Liability Period being over, on 11.10.2022, an email was sent to the Petitioner for making certain rectifications on account Page No.# 4/5 of some alleged defects. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that this alleged defects as was pointed out to the Petitioner vide the email dated 11.10.2022 is beyond the Defect Liability Period and as such the Respondent Authorities cannot disentitle the Petitioner to the performance security money of an amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. 6. Per contra, it is seen that an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the Respondents wherein it is contended that the Defect Liability Period would end after the completion of the rainy season and the rainy season would end sometime in the late part of October, 2022 taking into account that the Petitioner had handed over the site on 01.02.2022. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.4 therefore submitted that this is a case wherein the Petitioner is not entitled to the performance security money on the ground that the Petitioner had not rectified those defects. 8. This Court upon hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, finds it relevant to observe that the question as to when the Defect Liability Period would end being dynamic on the aspect as to when the rainy season for the year 2022 had ended and the same can only be adjudicated on the basis of evidence, it is the opinion of this Court that the claim made by the Petitioner cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Page No.# 5/5 9. Page No.# 5/5 9. Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition and accordingly, dismisses the instant writ petition. 10. Be that as it may, as this Court has not entertained the instant writ petition on the ground that there are disputed questions which requires adjudication in a forum wherein adjudication of facts can be adjudicated, liberty is given to the Petitioner to file appropriate proceedings for claiming the said amount along with interest, if so advised. 11. The dismissal of the instant writ petition however shall not prejudice the Petitioner in such proceedings if so filed. Further to that, as the Petitioner has been bona fidely pursuing the present writ petition, the period from 10.11.2023 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation. 12. It is also observed that the order passed herein shall not debar the Petitioner to approach the Respondents and carry out the rectification of the defects, so that the performance security money can be released in favour of the Petitioner. JUDGE Comparing Assistant