Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010053202026 2026:GAU-AS:4382 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/833/2026 MD MONSUR AHMED SON OF NAYEEM UDDIN AHMED, RESIDENT OF MAIDIHI WARD NO. 1 SETTLEMENT ROAD DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM PIN - 788712. VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 6. 2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ESTT-B BRANCH CONFIDENTIAL CELL PWRD DISPUR GUWAHATI - 6 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (BORDER ROADS) ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI -3 4:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) CACHAR CIRCLE SILCHAR. 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWRD R.K. NAGAR T.R. DIVISION R. . NAGARPAGE DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSAM. 6:SRI GULZAR HUSSAIN CHOUDHURY SON OF MAKLISUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NITAINAGAR P.O. P.S. - RATABARI DISTRICTKARIMGANJ ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D J DAS, MR. P MAHANTA Page No.# 2/8 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, A B T HAQUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER 26.03.2026 Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the applicant-respondent no. 6; Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for the opposite party nos. 1 – 5; and Mr. D.P. Borah, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 6-writ petitioner. 2. The instant application under Article 226[3] of the Constitution of India is preferred by the applicant seeking vacation/modification/alteration of an interim Order dated 16.02.2026 passed in the accompanying writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 837/2026. 3. The opposite party no. 6 as the writ petitioner has preferred the accompanying writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 837/2026 to assail two Office Letters, dated 19.01.2026 & dated 28.01.2026. By the said Office Letters, the State Government in the Public Works [Road], Department had directed the Chief Engineer, PWD [Border Roads & NEC Works] [the opposite party-respondent no. 3] and the Executive Engineer, PWRD [the opposite party-respondent no. 5] for immediate resumption of execution of the remaining part of the contract-work in question under the PMSGY Package No. AS-13-278 by the respondent no. 6-applicant and to ensure completion of the remaining part of the contract-work before 31.03.2026. 4. At an earlier point of time, the present applicant as the writ petitioner had preferred a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2243/2021 to challenge an Order dated 09.12.2020 whereby the contract-work under reference was terminated purportedly without any notice. The contract- work under reference is on the subject, ‘Construction & Maintenance of Anipur - Zamuang NEC Road to Dakshin Rampur under PMGSY Package AS-13-278 in the district of Karimganj’, hereinafter referred as ‘the Contract-Work’, at places, for easy reference. Pursuant to a tender process, the Contract-Work was allotted to the applicant-respondent no. 6 vide an Order Page No.# 3/8 dated 24.01.2019. When the Contract-Work was terminated by the Order dated 09.12.2020, the applicant-respondent no. 6 herein as the writ petitioner in W.P.[C] no. 2243/2021 agitated that the authority who had issued the Termination Order on 09.12.2020 did not have the authority and jurisdiction to do so and the termination was done unilaterally. 5. The learned Single Judge after hearing, disposed of the writ petition by a Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2022. The Co-ordinate Bench had reached a finding that the challenge pertaining to termination of the Contract-Work was not liable to be interfered with observing that there was no jurisdictional error in issuance of the Termination Order. The authority who had issued the Termination Order was conferred the power by the Chief Engineer, Public Works [Road] Department. On the issue of no proper notice, the Co-ordinate Bench had observed that the Order of Termination dated 09.12.2020 was preceeded by a series of correspondence including a Show Cause Notice dated 28.09.2020. During the course of deliberation, another issue regarding allotment of the balance work to the respondent no. 6 therein, who is the opposite party no. 6-writ petitioner herein, cropped up. After deliberation, the Co-ordinate Bench had observed that on the said issue, certain intervention would be necessary in view of involvement of huge amount of public money. Taking note of the fact that determination of factual aspects would fall for determination, the Court refrained from playing the role of the primary authority. But, considering the findings recorded after a fact finding enquiry, the Co-ordinate Bench had observed that appropriate action might be necessary to be taken against the erring officials including the beneficiaries and it was directed that appropriate action should be taken strictly in accordance with law by providing fair opportunity to the persons arraigned. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition was disposed of. 6. It requires a mention that the writ petitioner therein, that is, the applicant-respondent no. 6 herein assailing the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2022 preferred an intra-court appeal, Writ Appeal no. 397/2020. When the writ appeal came up for consideration before the Division Bench on 11.11.2025, a submission was made to the effect that the State respondents had recalled the Termination Order and directed the Executive Engineer to entrust the balance work to the appellant therein, that is, the applicant-respondent no. 6 Page No.# 4/8 herein vide Office Letter dated 07.08.2025 and the concerned Executive Engineer had, in turn, an Office Letter dated 19.08.2025 asked the appellant to mobilize his resource and intimate about the date of resumption of Contract-Work. With further submission that the appellant was in the process of mobilizing his resources, the writ appeal was sought to be withdrawn. The Division Bench granted the permission to withdraw the appeal and accordingly, the writ appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.11.2025. 7. From the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the Contract-Work was awarded to the applicant-respondent no. 6 at first. Subsequently, due to failure on the part of the applicant-respondent no. 6 to execute the Contract-Work in conformity with the terms and conditions of the contract agreement and within the stipulated time period, the same came to be terminated by Termination Order dated 09.12.2020. The projection made on behalf of the State respondents is to the effect that the time period for completion of The Contract-Work was twelve months from 24.01.2019 and till the date of termination, progress to the extent of 40% only was achieved. 8. This Court in the Order dated 16.02.2026 had taken note of the fact that after the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2022, the respondent no. 2 in an Office Letter dated 05.06.2025 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition] had recorded a finding that ‘The original contract was never legally terminated’. On the said aspect, this Court had made a prima facie observation that such view of the respondent no. 2 was contrary to the findings recorded in the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2022 as regards legality of the Termination Order leading to termination of the Contract-Work. 9. From the earlier rounds of litigation and the Order dated 11.11.2025 passed in the writ appeal, Writ Appeal no. 397/2020, it is evident that the Termination Order dated 19.12.2020 having been not interfered with in any manner, has attained finality. 10. This Court in the Order dated 16.02.2026, has proceeded to observe on the said aspect in the following manner :- Page No.# 5/8 12. In the impugned Office Letters, dated 19.01.2026 [Annexure-15] & dated 28.01.2026 [Annexure-16], a direction has been made for immediate resumption of the remaining part of the Contract-Work by the respondent no. 6. It is the direction for resumption of the Contract-Work, which is inter alia assailed in this writ petition. 13. Having gone through the materials / documents brought on record, it prima- facie appears that despite receipt of judicial impramitur as regards legality and validity of the Termination Order passed against the respondent no. 6 herein, which order was passed by the respondents themselves, the basis of the decision to award of the remaining part of the Contract-Work in favour of the respondent no. 6 herein vide the subsequent Office Letters is the finding that ‘the original contract was never legally terminated’ recorded in an Office Letter dated 05.06.2026. Such finding was prima facie in disregard to the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2022. With the dismissal of Writ Appeal no. 397/2022 on 11.11.2025, the Judgment and Order in W.P.[C] no. 2243/2021 could not be said to be wiped out of existence. The legality and validity of the manner in which the remaining part of the Contract- Work has been awarded to a contractor in default i.e. the respondent no. 6 is an issue arises for consideration. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has canvassed that the opposite party no. 6-writ petitioner herein has preferred a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4887/2025 earlier laying challenge inter-alia to two Office Letters, dated 17.06.2025 & dated 07.08.2025, whereby the State respondents had liquidated and forfeited the bank instruments of the petitioner available with the department and had also directed him to refund the remaining amount to PMGSY bank account pertaining to the Contract-Work under reference [the balance work]. In the said writ petition, only an interim order to the effect that no coercive action should be taken had been passed. Therefore, it is evident from the Office Letters, dated 17.06.2025 & dated 07.08.2025, that punitive action had been taken against the opposite party no. 6-writ petitioner. Since the decisions for forfeiture of the bank instruments and refund of the remaining amount found have been taken by the State respondents against the opposite party no. 6-writ petitioner, there could not have been any legal bar to allot the balance part of Page No.# 6/8 the Contract-Work to the applicant-respondent no. 6 vide the two Office Letters, dated 19.01.2026 & dated 28.01.2026. 12. It is further contended that the balance part of the Contract-Work was not awarded to the opposite party no. 6-writ petitioner by adhering to the procedure alone and the fact finding enquiry report had revealed glaring allotment in the said allotment process. The applicant-respondent no. 6 has, however, not made any independent challenge to the matter of allotment of the balance part of the Contract-Work to the opposite party-respondent no. 6 and such non-challenge is prima facie suggestive of an act of waiver. 13. The findings recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench in the Judgment & Order dated 30.11.2022 seems to have attained finality. Though a challenge was made in the writ appeal but after withdrawal of the writ appeal, it is the decision rendered on the issues involved in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2243/2021 which are to be looked. The writ appeal was withdrawn by the writ appellant therein, that is, the applicant-respondent no. 6 herein on the premise that the balance part of the Contract-Work would be re-allotted to him. But, the same would not preclude the opposite party-writ petitioner herein to assail Office Letters, dated 19.01.2026 & dated 28.01.2026. 14. It is the legality and validity of the Office Letters, dated 19.01.2026 & dated 28.01.2026, which are challenged in the accompanying writ petition. As the issue of allotment of the balance part of the Contract-Work in favour of the opposite patty-writ petitioner has not been challenged in any manner before this Court, this Court is not in a position to comment on the said issue. It is stated before the Court by the State respondents that in view of the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge in the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2022, enquiries were initiated against the erring officials to take appropriate actions and the beneficiaries would be embraced within the enquiries. Departmental proceedings were ordered against two officials but the Report on Enquiry submitted by the first Inquiry Officer was found inconclusive as no findings on the charges were found to have been recorded and no reasonable opportunity of hearing was found to have been given to the delinquent officials. On that ground, it has been decided to appoint an Inquiry Officer to Page No.# 7/8 conduct a de novo enquiry into the charges framed against the delinquent officials vide Show Cause Notice dated 27.02.2022. From the Agenda of Enquiry, which is annexed as Annexure- W to the application, it can be noticed that one of the terms of reference is to find out as to ‘Whether Cancellation of Contract with the original contractor [i.e. the applicant herein] was valid or not’. The said terms of reference, in the considered view of this Court, projects a view which prima facie goes to suggest that the Committee which has finalized the terms of reference, is sitting in appeal over the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2022 [supra] and such a view is not permissible in law. 15. With no challenge made to the Order of allotment of the balance part of the Contract- Work to the opposite party no. 6-writ petitioner and no final findings recorded in the enquiry permitted to be initiated by the Co-ordinate Bench in the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2022 [supra] for taking appropriate actions against the erring officials including the beneficiaries till date, this Court reaching a prima facie view, obviously not a final view, that the re-allotment of the balance part of the Contract-Work in favour of the applicant- respondent no. 6 is not in obedience to the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2022, more particularly, when such re-allotment has been made without following the procedure of publication of a tender notice, had passed the interim order on 16.02.2026 in the following terms :- 14. The petitioner has claimed that after being allotted with the remaining part of the Contract-Work, he had executed a substantial portion of the Contract-Work. The petitioner has further contended that he had, in fact, completed the remaining part of the Contract-Work. These claims made by the petitioner would require factual determination because of the counter claims of the respondent authorities that the petitioner did not execute any work. But, if any part of the Contract-Work was executed by the present petitioner, immediate resumption would wipe out the same. However, the basis to award the remaining part of the Contract-Work to the respondent no. 6 with the finding that ‘the original contract was never legally terminated’ is suggestive of an action taken contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 30.11.2022, which has not been interfered by the Order dated Page No.# 8/8 11.11.2025 of the Hon’ble Division Bench. Finding prima facie force in such contention, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for an interim order. In such view of the matter, the direction made in the impugned Office Letters - dated 19.01.2026 [Annexure-15] & dated 28.01.2026 [Annexure-16] - for immediate resumption of the Contract-Work by the respondent no. 6 shall remain in abeyance till the returnable date. 16. In view of the above discussions and for the reasons assigned, this Court finds no reason to vacate/modify/alter the interim order dated 16.02.2026. The instant interlocutory application preferred under Article 226[3] of the Constitution of India having found unmerited, stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant