Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010006852024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1185/2024 MOLOY BHATTACHARJEE AND 6 ORS S/O- MONORANJAN BHATTACHARJEE, R/O- VILLAGE KATLICHERRA, P.O- KATLICHERRA, DIST- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM 2: MD. SHAMSUL ISLAM BARLASKAR S/O- LATE SARAFAT ALI. R/O-PROJECT B ROAD HAILAKANDI P.O AND P.S-HAILAKANDI DIST-HAILAKANDI 3: GOBINDA LAL CHATTERJEE S/O- NARAYAN CHATTERJEE R/O- LALA TOWN P.O- LALA DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM 4: RUMA PAUL D/O- SACHINDRA PAUL R/O- VILLAGE KATLICHERRA P.O- KATLICHERRA DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM 5: SANDIP DAYAL S/O- RAMESWAR DAYAL Page No.# 2/6 R/O- VILLAGE KATLICHERRA P.O- KATLICHERRA DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM 6: MD. MONIRUL ISLAM LASKAR S/O- LATE ATOWAR RAHMAN R/O- VILLAGE DAKSHIN SONAPUR P.O- MATIJURI DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM 7: PROBIR DAS S/O- LATE PROBHAT DAS R/O- VILLAGE KATLICHERRA P.O- KATLICHERRA DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 3:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER CACHAR AND HILLS WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT P.O- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HAILAKANDI WATER RESOURCES DIVISION Page No.# 3/6 HAILAKANDI P.O- HAILAKANDI-788155 DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM 5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER HAILAKANDI WATER RESOURCES DIVISION HAILAKANDI P.O- HAILAKANDI-788155 DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S NATH, MR. H AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : SC, WATER RESOURCE, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 19.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. D. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were allotted various contract works for protection of river erosion at Karicherra (Dhariarghat area) on right rank of river Katakhel under Hailakandi, Water Resources Division, Hailakandi by the respondent no.4. Since the grievance and claim of the petitioners are similar and identical in nature, having similar cause of action, these 7 (seven) writ petitioners have approached this Court jointly. Page No.# 4/6 3. The petitioners were issued various orders and letters for the said works, which are as follows:- “ (i) the petitioner no.1 was allotted with the work order No. HWR/CS/Gr-5(A) SE/Dhariarghat/2013-14/2 dated 19.05.2014. (ii) the petitioner no.2 was allotted with the work order No.HWR/CS/Gr-2/ACE Dhariarghat/2013-14/1 dated 19.05.2014. (iii) the petitioner no.3 was allotted with the work order No.HWR/CS/Gr- 16/EE/Dhariarghat/2013-14/3 dated 31.05.2014. (iv) the petitioner no.4 was allotted with the work order No.HWR/CS/Gr- 16/EE/Dhariarghat/2013-14/1 dated 31.05.2014. (v) the petitioner no.5 was allotted with the work order No. HWR/CS/Gr- 15/EE/Dhariarghat/2013-14/1 dated 31.05.2014. (vi) the petitioner no.6 was allotted with 3 (three) works orders i.e. (a.) work order No.HWR/ CS/ Gr-2/ ACE/ Dhariarghat/ 2013-14/4 dated 19.05.2014, (b) HWR/ CMPKG/ 2/ D.Ghat 2013-14 /212 dated 18.12.2015 and (c) HWR/C.M.PKG/2/D.Ghat 2013-14/209 dated 18.12.215. (vii) the petitioner no.7 was allotted with the work order No. HWR/CS/Gr- 5(B)/SE/Dhariarghat/2013-14/1 dated 19.05.2014” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these works were duly executed by the petitioners as the completion report in respect of the works was submitted to the Executive Engineer, Hailakandi. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that that all the works had been duly completed and Page No.# 5/6 the liability statement had also been issued by the Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division, Hailakandi, in respect of the works done by the petitioners. Liability statements reflect the balance amount to be paid by the Department. It is the submission that in spite of the liability statement, no fund has been released till date. 5. This Court by order dated 01.03.2024 had issued notice to the respondents and thereafter, opportunities were also granted to the respondents to complete their instructions. 6. Today when the matter was called up, learned counsel for the respondents further renews her prayer for seeking instructions. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the writ petition, it is seen that the work orders were issued to the petitioners and from the liabilities statements, it is seen that the petitioners payments are shown to be outstanding and payable by the Department. Liability Statements are duly signed by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Hailakandi. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the matter need not be kept pending since the instructions are not forthcoming from the Department. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondents, more particularly, the respondent no.2 to examine and verify the claims of each of the writ petitioners in respect of the claims made by them. If Page No.# 6/6 the amount, after due verification, is found to be payable to the petitioners, then the same should be released by following the guidelines laid down in Tamsher Ali Vs. State of Assam and Ors, reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1. In terms of the above directions this writ petition is disposed of. 10. The entire exercise of verification of the admitted amount should be completed by the concerned respondents within a period of 3 (three) months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant