Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010016032021 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/557/2021 EAST INDIA SUPPLY CENTRE SRCB ROAD, FANCY BAZAR, GUWAHATI 1, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. MRINAL GOSWAMI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE RAVINDRA KUMAR GENERIWAL, RESIDENT OF SRCB ROAD, FANCY BAZAR,GUWAHATI 1 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOALPARA DIST GOALPARA ASSAM 3:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOALPARA GOALPARA ASSAM 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER MATIA REVENUE CIRCLE DIST GOALPARA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B D DAS, MR D KALITA,MS K PHUKAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 25.07.2025 Heard Shri BD Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri HR Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri SR Baruah, learned State Counsel, Assam as well as Shri J Handique, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Assam. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer: “In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this application, call for the records and issue a Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the order dated 06.08.2019 issued by the Respondent No. 3 (Anx - 9) shall not be set aside and quashed and why the petitioner shall not be paid the bill amount of Rs. 7,40,052/- (at Annexure-12) against supply of HDPE Tarpaulin Sheet 12 Feet X 15 Feet (120 GSM) (at Annexure - 2) with interest at 15% per annum and why the security amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall not be released to the petitioner and after return of the Rule and upon such cause or causes being shown and upon hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute giving full and complete reliefto the petitioner and/or pass such further or other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 3. It is the case of the petitioner, which is a Firm that it had participated in a tender process which was initiated by a Short Quotation Notice dated 29.05.2019 issued by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara for supply of 1348 Tarpaulin Sheets in the flood relief camp of Suriyagiri Gaon Panchayat in the district of Goalpara. The petitioner being successful in the process was accordingly issued supply order dated 21.07.2019 and the petitioner claims to have made the aforesaid supplies. It, however transpires that while the Tarpaulin was to be a specified size, namely, 12 feet Page No.# 3/4 X 15 feet, 948 nos. of such Tarpaulin sheets were found to be in the specification of 8 feet X 10 feet. However, the replacements of the 948 Tarpaulin sheets were done by the sheets of proper size. The grievance of the petitioner is against an order dated 06.08.2019 whereby, the bill amount of the consignment has been held back and the security money has been forfeited. 4. Shri Das, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that though as a matter of fact, there were certain discrepancies with the sizes and specifications of the Tarpaulin sheets in respect of 948 nos. of such sheets out of 1348, the same were replaced. In this regard, he has referred to the communication dated 14.09.2020 issued by the Circle Officer, Matia Revenue Circle, Goalpara to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara. He submits that the discrepancies having been removed, the impugned order dated 06.08.2019 is unsustainable in law and accordingly, a direction be issued for release of the dues to the petitioner. 5. Per contra, Shri Baruah, learned State Counsel has submitted that the size of the Tarpaulin sheets is only one component of the reason for passing the order dated 06.08.2019. He submits that other component is the quality and there is a clear reference to the said component in the impugned order. He has submitted that the supplies were of inferior quality and that the stand of the official respondents have also been given in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 18.02.2022 by the respondent no. 2. 6. Shri J Handique, learned Standing Counsel has endorsed the submissions of the learned State Counsel. 7. The impugned order dated 06.08.2019 takes into consideration two reasons with regard to the impugned action. The first is the size of the Tarpaulin and the Page No.# 4/4 second is the quality. So far as the size is concerned, the communication dated 14.09.2020 issued by the Circle Officer, Matia Revenue Circle indicates that the said issue was taken care of. However, the said communication is silent on the aspect of the quality. It also appears that an inquiry was being conducted on the entire aspect of the supply made by the petitioner. However, from the records made available before this Court, there is no indication with regard to the fate of the said inquiry. 8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no reason to keep this petition, filed in the year 2021 pending and accordingly, it is directed that the inquiry, if not completed, be brought to its logical conclusion and thereafter, a decision be taken on the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner. If the finding of the inquiry on the aspect of quality is in favour of the petitioner, the amount involved should be released to the petitioner immediately. On the other hand, if there is a deficiency in the quality, the petitioner is required to be given an opportunity of hearing before passing any order regarding deduction or any such action on the amount which is claimed by the petitioner. The entire exercise is directed to be completed expeditiously and in any case within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant