Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010034782025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1018/2025 M/S BHUYAN PARTNERS REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNER SMT MAMOON BHUYAN , D/O- LOHITESHWAR BHUYAN, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO 32 VIDYANAGAR, SHIV MANDIR PATH, BAGHORBORI, P.O-KHANAPARA, P.S-SATGAON ,GUWAHATI-37 KAMRUP METRO ,ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY ,GUWAHATI DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, BLOCK D, ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER BHANGAGHAR GMDA BUILDING GUWAHATI-05 3:THE COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BHANGAGHAR GMDA BUILDING GUWAHATI-0 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR ANGSHUMAN DEKA, MR S P DAS,MS. S BAISHYA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GDD, SC, GMC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Page No.# 2/3 ORDER Date : 07.03.2025 Heard Mr. S.P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, GDD. 2. Being aggrieved by the termination notice dated 12.06.2021, issued by the Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation, whereby, the contract of the petitioner for the work of cleaning, desilting and maintenance of all city drains in Guwahati City for the year 2020-21, the present petition is filed. 3. The petitioner being a registered contractor was awarded the work of cleaning, desilting and maintenance of all city drains in Guwahati City for the year 2020-21, for the Package No. C & D/79 at the contract price of Rs.15,88,000/- vide letter of acceptance dated 04.05.2021, and thereafter, notice to proceed with the work was issued on the same day. 4. Upon receipt of the notice to proceed with the work, the petitioner claims to have started the execution of the work as per the work order. However, within a period of 28 days, it is contended that the show-cause notice was issued vide order dated 08.06.2021 by the respondent No.3, to which, the petitioner has submitted his reply. Thereafter, the impugned termination notice dated 12.06.2021 has been issued terminating the contract of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has also prayed for payment of the amount due to the petitioner for the works completed i.e. 25-30% as admitted by the respondents. 6. It is stated at the Bar that a similar batch of writ petitions have been disposed of by this Court. One of which, vide order dated 22.11.2024 in WP(C) 5882/2024, this Court has disposed of the writ petition directing the GMC to carry out the verification as regards the entitlement of each of the petitioners and upon verification, if it is found that the petitioners are entitled to any amount, the payment may be disbursed. 7. Learned counsel for the parties have fairly submits that the above order dated 22.11.2024 passed by this Court in those batch of writ petitions squarely covers the present case. 8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also on perusal of the order dated 22.11.2024 passed in the batch of writ petitions, the leading case being WP(C) 5882/2024, I am of the considered view that the order dated 22.11.2024 passed in the aforesaid writ petition would squarely covers the present case. Thus the petitioner is entitled to be provided with similar relief Page No.# 3/3 granted in the above batch of writ petitions. 9. Accordingly, it is directed that the GDD authority to carry out the verification as regards the entitlement of the petitioner and upon verification, if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to any amount, payment shall be released. 10. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 11. With the above observation and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant