Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010015762016 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2945/2016 SUHEL AHMED S/O. JALAL UDDIN, DIRECTOR, S.T ROAD, P.O. and P.S. BADARPUR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788803. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE SECY. and COMM. MUNICIPAL DEPTT. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY.-06. 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CACHAR SILCHAR. PIN-788001. 3:THE SILCHAR MUNIPIPAL BOARD CACHAR SILCHAR REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. PIN-788001. 4:GOLDIGHI MUNICIPAL MARKET MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE @ GOLDIGHI MALL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REP. BY THE PRESIDENT-CUM-CHAIRMAN SILCHAR MUNICIPAL BOARD P.O. SILCHAR P.S. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR PIN-788001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A CHOUDHURY, MS.M KONCH,MS.A A LASKAR,MR.S ISLAM Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Respondent : MR.C SHARMAR-3, GA, ASSAM(R-1 & 2),MR.S DUTTA(R- 3),MS.N MODI(R-3),MR.SIDHANT DUTTA(R-3) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 30.05.2025 Heard Shri S Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Sishir Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. K Bora, learned counsel for the Silchar Municipal Board (Board) as well as Shri S Baruah, learned State Counsel, Assam. 2. Considering the subject matter and also that the writ petition is pending since the year 2016, the same is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 3. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is the Director of M/S HRD Commercial & Industrial Security Force Pvt. Ltd. (Company). The said Company was assigned with a contract by the Board for providing security and in connection therewith, the petitioner claims that an amount of Rs. 3,68,186/- is due. 4. Shri Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that apart from the maintenance of security, the services for sweeping, dusting and cleaning were also done in the concerned area which is a Mall in the name of Goldighi Municipal Market at Silchar. He has also submitted that the contract period was of a year which had expired in September, 2015 and the outstanding amount was not cleared. 5. Shri Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the Board has, however submitted that there is a clause in the contract for adjustment in case of any damage or theft. He has referred to the agreement and specifically, Clause 15 thereof, which reads as follows: Page No.# 3/5 “15. lt is agreed that incase, any theft or damage caused to the Mall due to the negligence incompetence or lack of attentiveness on the part of the Security Personnel/ Security Service, the Second Party may be asked for compensation. Provided that in such cases the second Party will have the scope of hearing.” 6. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that there were instances of theft of two wheeler and it is for those reasons that the amount could not be finalized. 7. The aforesaid submissions have, however been responded to by Shri Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that as per instructions, no list of any stolen vehicles or damage caused has been provided to the petitioner. 8. While the matter had come up for consideration on the last occasion i.e. 11.11.2024, the following order was passed: “11.11.2024 Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Silchar Municipal Board. 2. Mr. S. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel submits that pursuant to the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by this Court, a meeting was held between the parties and in the said meeting it was decided that details of damaged, stolen materials along with the costs will be provided to the petitioner on receipt of proper prayer petition by the undersigned. But unfortunately, till date, no correspondence has been made by the petitioner regarding the same. 3. Mr. S. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has to make some correspondence with the respondents for attempting the settlement. 4. On the other hand, Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to illness, the petitioner could not proceed further with the attempt to compromise the matter. However, as he has now been given the letter dated 08.11.2024 issued by the Executive Officer cum Addl. District Commissioner, Page No.# 4/5 Cachar, Silchar, the petitioner shall make a written correspondence with the Executive Officer cum Addl. District Commissioner. 4. The contents of the letter dated 08.11.2024 is reproduced hereinbelow as follows:- “Sub.: Information regarding present status of WP © 2945/2016. Sir With reference to the subject cited above I have the inform you that as per the order passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court on 22/10/2024 in WP©2945/2016, the petitioner SUHEL AHMED, Director of HRD Commercial & Industrial Security Forces Pvt Ltd has approached the undersigned on 24/10/2024 for amicable settlement of the matter and thus a meeting was fixed on 28/10/2024 for resolution of the matter in the office of the undersigned. That Sir, on 28/10/2024, in presence of the concerned officials and the representative with Ld. Advocate of the petitioner, it was decided that details of damaged, stolen materials along with the costs will be provided to the petitioner on receipt of proper prayer petition by the undersigned and it was agreed by both the parties. But, unfortunately till date no correspondence has been made by the petitioner regarding the same. The copies of the petition for meeting and minutes along with attendance of the meeting is enclosed hare with for your kind perusal and needful further action. Thanking you.” 5. List this matter after 3(three) weeks.” 9. Shri Dutta, learned Senior Counsel as well as Shri Islam, learned counsel for the rival parties have submitted that in the meantime, there have been parleys between the parties and efforts are being made to settle the matter. He has also produced a copy of the letter dated 08.11.2024 addressed to him as per which, the case of the petitioner was considered. In fact, the contents of the said letter were already noted by this Court on the last occasion which has been extracted above. 10. In view of the above development, this Court is of the view that since the issue involves would require factual determination, the matter is remanded to the Board to bring the claim raised to a logical conclusion by considering the prayer of the petitioner. Page No.# 5/5 11. It is made clear that while undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the clauses of the contract, including Clause 15 may be taken into consideration which, however is to be supported by relevant documents. Since the claim is long pending, the aforesaid exercise may be completed expeditiously and within an outer limit of 45 days from today. 12. The writ petition accordingly disposed of in the above terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant