Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010116862025 2025:GAU-AS:15733 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3027/2025 M/S DULAL DUTTA A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR MR. DULAL DUTTA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O AMAR CHANDRA DUTTA, R/O VILL- BORBIL, P.O.- DIGBAOI, PIN-786171, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS), DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (BORDER ROADS AND NEC WORKS) ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003 4:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) EASTERN ZONE DIBRUGARH PIN-786001 ASSAM 5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Page No.# 2/4 PWD (ROADS) JORHAT NEC CIRCLE JORHAT ASSAM 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINNER PWD (ROADS) TINSUKIA STATE ROAD DIVISION TINSUKI Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. RB Gohain Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. B Gogoi, Addl.AG, Assam B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 19.11.2025 Heard Mr. RB Gohain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. B Gogoi, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam as well as the learned Standing Counsel, PWD appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondent authorities in not refunding the security deposit to the tune of Rs.41,74,300/- to which the petitioner is entitled to upon completion of the work and expiry of the defect liability period of 12 months. 3. The facts of the instant case would show that the petitioner was issued a work namely “Development of Margherita Deomali Road in Tinsukia District (L = 13.25 km) in Assam under Social and Infrastructure Development Fund (SIDF) Page No.# 3/4 (Ch.9000.m to Ch. 13255.00m) including construction of RCC Br.No.10/2 and 11/2 under SIDF (Package No.TSK-SP-3)”. The petitioner completed the work to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities in the year 2015 and in that regard a completion certificate was also issued on 29.09.2015. 4. The petitioner received all the bills in respect to the contract in question. However, the security deposit to the tune of Rs.41,74,300/- was not returned to the petitioner. Petitioner had represented the respondent authorities on various occasions, however, the respondent authorities having not returned the said security deposit, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent No.3 i.e. the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Border Roads and NEC Chandmari wherein it has been duly admitted that the petitioner had completed the work on 29.09.2015 and the petitioner was also entitled to the security deposit. It is, however, mentioned that on account of certain official lapses, the security deposit, went missing. 6. This Court had also taken note of paragraph No.9 of the said affidavit-in- opposition, wherein it is a categorical stand that the said amount of security deposit would be paid to the petitioner and further requested not to impose interest against the late release of payment of the security deposit to the petitioner. 7. This Court upon hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties is of the opinion that as the petitioner had duly completed the work to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities, the petitioner was entitled to the security deposit of an amount of Rs.41,74,300/- after the expiry of 12 months. 8. The respondents have also admitted that on account of certain official Page No.# 4/4 lapses, the said amount could not be paid to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following directions: (i). The respondent authorities and, more particularly, the respondent No.3 are directed to refund the security deposit of an amount of Rs.41,74,300/- within a period of 3(three) months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the respondent No.3. (ii). This Court, taking into account the statements made in paragraph No.9 is not inclined to impose any interest upon the respondent authorities, if within the time permitted in Sub- Paragraph (i), the respondent authorities release the security deposit. However, if the said amount is not disbursed within the period of 3(three) months from the date of furnishing the certified copy to the respondent No.3, the said amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the date, the petitioner, as per the contractual terms and conditions was entitled to the refund of the security deposit. JUDGE Comparing Assistant