Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010000372025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/143/2025 M/S MONDAL TRADERS PROPRIETOR, ANOWAR HUSSAIN MONDAL, S/O- LATE ASIRUDDIN MONDAL, VILL.- MORIOM NAGAR, P.O. BALADMARI, DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE MISSION DIRECTOR JAL JEEVAN MISSION ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036. 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PHE) WATER ASSAM CUM ADDITIONAL MISSION DIRECTOR JAL JEEVAN MISSION ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036. 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT WATER AND SANITATION MISSION DHUBRI P.O. AND DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783301. Page No.# 2/5 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PHE) DHUBRI DIVISION CUM DISTRICT MISSION DIRECTOR JAL JEEVAN MISSION P.O. AND DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783301. 6:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PHE) BILASIPARA SUB-DIVISION BILASIPARTA DIST. DHUBRI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D A KAIYUM, MR. M S MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, P H E BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 17.02.2025 Heard Mr. DA Kaiyum, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. RR Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel PHE Department. 2. The petitioner before this Court putting to challenge the work order dated 10.10.2022 for “Implementation of different new Piped Water Supply Schemes of Dhubri Division under Jal Jeevan Mission Assam for the year 2021-22” issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Health & Engineering Department, Dhubri Division. Pursuant to the work order the petitioner proceeded to execute the work. According to the petitioner he has completed 84% of the work but his payments for the works executed have not been released in full. Only part Page No.# 3/5 payments have been received. Subsequently, the respondent no.5 terminated the contract order of the petitioner by order dated 18.01.2024. In the said cancellation order, the representatives of the petitioner were directed to be present at site on the date of joint verification of the works stated to have executed which to be intimated by the Department. According to the petitioner, in addition to the amounts due for the work executed, the joint verification, which was to be conducted by the Department along with the representatives of the writ petitioner, was never carried out. Being aggrieved, he is before this Court. 3. Learned Standing Counsel, PHE was permitted to obtain instructions. Today, when the matter is called up, learned Standing Counsel, PHE prays for further time to complete his instructions. 4. Upon perusal of the writ petition along with the annexure as well as upon taking into consideration submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the allotment of work to the petitioner and his execution in part to a portion of the work is not disputed. However, the claim of the petitioner that he executed 84% of the works is disputed and learned Standing Counsel for the Department submits that the Department is in the process of verification of the claim made by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the said contention and Page No.# 4/5 submits that in terms of the cancellation of the order dated 18.01.2024, the verification was to be conducted jointly by the Department along with the representative of the petitioner. However, till date, he has not been intimated about any joint verification that needs to be undertaken. He submits that the Department be directed to undertake a joint verification to verify the claims of the petitioner and thereafter, release the outstanding amount claimed by the petitioner. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of at this stage directing the concerned respondent authorities to intimate the petitioner of the date(s) for conducting the joint verification in the presence of the representative of the petitioner and thereafter, upon due verification the claims of the petitioner in respect of the portion of the works stated to have been executed and the payments due to the petitioner should be released. Once the Department concludes the joint verification, the necessary step to release the payment shall be undertaken in terms of the principles laid down the Tamsher Ali Vs. State of Assam and Ors, reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1. The joint verification will be conducted within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Page No.# 5/5 7. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant