Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9808 (GAU)

M/S D. KUMAR AND SALES AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.

WP(C)/1812/2024 · 2025-08-31

Kardak Ete

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010064292024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C)/1812/2024 M/S D. KUMAR AND SALES AND ANR. REP. BY ITS MARKETING HEAD ALOK DAS WITH ITS REGD. OFFICES AT 4A MAYUR GARDEN ABC G.S ROAD GUWAHATI-05 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 2: ALOK DAS SON OF ASHOK KUMAR DAS RESIDENT OF LACHIT GARH PATH GARCHUK GUWAHATI- 781035 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR Page No.# 2/4 GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (WATER) PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-36. 5:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT UPPER ASSAM ZONE NAGAON. 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DHING DIVISION DHING ------------ Advocate for : MR. M SARMA Advocate for : SC P H E appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 01.09.2025 Heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, PHED appearing for the respondents. 2. By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to release the outstanding amount of Rs.5,41,902/- to the petitioner on account of the following works, which are quoted herein below:- “(i) Execution of FRP (Fire Reinforced Plastic) DTR fencing (2.15 x 2.15 x 1.8)M including civil Page No.# 3/4 works around the transformer of Kandhulimari No.2 PWSS under NRDWP; (ii) Execution of FRP (Fire Reinforced Plastic) DTR fencing (2.15 x 2.15 x 1.8)M including civil works around the transformer of Rowmaripam No.2 PWSS under NRDWP; (ii) Execution of FRP (Fire Reinforced Plastic) DTR fencing (2.15 x 2.15 x 1.8)M including civil works around the transformer of Chamuagaon Betkati No.2 PWSS under NRDWP; (iv) Execution of FRP (Fire Reinforced Plastic) DTR fencing (2.15 x 2.15 x 1.8)M including civil works around the transformer of Borigaon PWSS under NRDWP; (v) Execution of FRP (Fire Reinforced Plastic) DTR fencing (2.15 x 2.15 x 1.8)M including civil works around the transformer of Borbheti PWSS under NRDWP and (vi) Execution of FRP (Fire Reinforced Plastic) DTR fencing (2.15 x 2.15 x 1.8)M including civil works around the transformer of Balisatra PWSS under NRDWP”. 3. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the NIT, the petitioner was awarded the above works, which have been satisfactorily executed. 4. Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has completed the above works with the satisfaction of the concerned authorities for which, the part payment of the outstanding bill of the petitioner has been made by the respondent authorities. However, the remaining amount of Rs.5,41,902/- has not been paid as on date despite several approaches and therefore, prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to release the remaining amount to the petitioner. 5. Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, PHED on instruction fairly submits that the amount claimed by the petitioner is an admitted amount. However, due to paucity or non-availability of required fund, the same could not be paid to the petitioner and submits that as and when the fund is available, the aforesaid amount claimed by the petitioner shall be paid. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and considering that the amount of Rs.5,41,902/- claimed by the petitioner is an admitted amount, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to non-availability of fund that too when the works have already been satisfactorily executed and completed. 7. Thus, it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities by granting reasonable time to make payment of the admitted and undisputed amount to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent authorities in the department of PHED, Govt. of Assam shall release the admitted amount of Rs.5,41,902/- to the petitioner within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Page No.# 4/4 Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant