Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010007902025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/430/2025 SALMAN HIND SON OF LATE FAKAR UDDIN BARBHUIYA, RESIDENT OF R.P. ROAD, HAILAKANDI, P.O. AND P.S. HAILAKANDI, PIN- 788155, DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-03 3:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER CACHAR AND HILLS WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SILCHAR P.O. SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HAILAKANDI WATER RESOURCES DIVISION P.O.- HAILAKANDI PIN- 788155 DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI ASSAM Page No.# 2/6 5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER HAILAKANDI WATER RESOURCES DIVISION P.O.- HAILAKANDI DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 78815 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S NATH, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, WATER RESOURCE, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 02.05.2025 1. No one appears for the petitioner on call. 2. Ms. J. Gogoi, learned counsel appears for all the respondents. 3. The petitioner’s case is that he had been given various contract works by the respondents relating to protection of land from river erosion. The petitioner case is that he has not been paid his contractual dues for various works that have been allotted to him, which is reflected in paragraph-3 & 4 of the writ petition. 4. The affidavit of the respondent no.2, i.e. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department is to the effect that the petitioner has been allotted different work orders by the Executive Engineer, Hailakandi, Water Resources Division, which is Page No.# 3/6 reflected in paragraph-6 of the affidavit-in-opposition, which is reproduced hereinbelow, as follows : Name of Contractor Name of Scheme Work order No. and Date Work order Amount (Rs.) Bill Amount Salman Hind M&R to protection of Hailakandi Town from the erosion of river Dhaleswar on its R/B (R/s to damaged river bank towards D/s) FOR 2006- 07 W/53/ptII/2006- 07/86 2,42,000/- 2,41,599/- Salman Hind M&R to improvement of Dhaleswari & Katakhal Drainage Basin ph-II (Tasla Dam) for 2006-07 W/53/ptII/2006- 07/92 2,94,000/- 2,93,780/- Salman Hind M&R to Dyke along L/B of Dhilaidhar grant to Dhilaidhar Village for 2006-07 W/53/ptII/2006- 07/112 1,95,500/- 1,95,313/- Salman Hind M&R to improvement of Dhaleswari & Katakhal Drainage Basin ph-II (Tasla Dam) for 2006-07 W/53/ptII/2006- 07/98 2,91,500/- 2,91,271/- Salman Hind M&R to Dyke along L/B of Dhaleswari from Dhilaidhar grant to Dhilaidhar Village for 2006-07 W/53/ptII/2006- 07/110 1,95,500/- 1,95,471/- Salman Hind M&R to Dyke along L/B of Dhaleswari from Dhilaidhar grant to Dhilaidhar Village for 2006-07 W/53/ptII/2006- 07/109 1,95,500/- 1,95,490/- Salman Hind M&R to Dyke along L/B of Dhaleswari from Dhilaidhar grant to Dhilaidhar Village for 2006-07 W/53/ptII/2006- 07/108 2,95,500/- 2,94,546/- 5. Paragraph-8 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.2 states that though the petitioner has stated that he had done another contract Page No.# 4/6 work namely “Protection of river erosion at Kaicherra (Dhariarghat Area) on the right bank of River Katakhal and Dhaleswari River (C.M. Special Package) for the eyar 2006-2007”, the office of the respondent no.4 could not give any confirmation with regard to whether the said contract work had been done by the petitioner, as there was no documentary evidence, like work order, technical sanction, bills etc that could be traced out by the office of the respondent no.4. 6. Paragraph-9, 10 & 11 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.2 states as follows : “9. That, the deponent begs to state that regarding execution of work, the entries have been made in the Measurement book which is countersigned by the then Sub-Divisional Officer and the Site Engineer. However, no Work Completion report has been traced out by the then Executive Engineer, Hailakandi Water Resources Division. 10. That, the deponent begs to state that the office of the Respondent No. 4 had not issued any Completion Certificate to the petitioner for supply of works for the Scheme "Protection of River Erosion at Karicherra on R/B of River katakhal under Chief Minister Package'. The deponent's office has no such records of issuing completion certificate to the petitioner as mentioned by the petitioner in his Writ Petition and hence the deponent wants strictest proof regarding the same. 11. That the deponent begs to state that the petitioner has executed only M&R Scheme related work as mentioned above and accordingly he has submitted necessary bill to the office of the then Executive Engineer, Hailakandi Water Resource's Division. But without work Completion Page No.# 5/6 Certificate and Administrative Approval it is doubtful for deponent's office to release any payment to the petitioner.” 7. On considering the fact that the respondents have taken a stand that there is no Completion Certificate with regard to some of the contract works done by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the question whether the contracts have been completed, can be verified by the respondents themselves. As such, with regard to those contract works which have been done by the petitioner as per the records of the respondents, the respondent nos. 2 & 4 should ascertain whether the contract works have been completed by the petitioner and if the same has been completed, the outstanding liabilities pertaining to the said completed contract works, should be given to the petitioner. In respect of the contractual dues claimed by the petitioner, in respect of contract works where there is no record of work orders, etc., this Court is of the view that the same cannot be the basis of making a claim for contractual dues, as the issue as to whether any work orders had been issued to the petitioner would have to be first gone into. The same being a disputed question of fact, this Court holds that in respect of those contract works, where no work order is traceable in the records of the respondents, the petitioner may approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, by adducing evidence to the effect that he is entitled to the payment of contractual dues for work done and which had been completed with the knowledge and direction of the respondents. 8. In view of the reasons stated above, this writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to verify whether the work orders mentioned in paragraph-6 of the affidavit-in-opposition have been completed by the petitioner Page No.# 6/6 and if the same had been completed, the outstanding amount for the same shall be paid to the petitioner. The entire exercise with regard to the verification and payment to be made in respect of paragraph-6 of the affidavit-in-opposition should be completed within a a period of 4 (four) months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant