Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010022512026 2026:GAU-AS:1995 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/394/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE R AND D CHAIRMAN DEFENSE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION DRDO NEW DELHI 2: CHIEF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER R AND D MINISTRY OF DEFENSE DEFENSE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION DRDO BORJHAR GUWAHATI 1 VERSUS MADHU RAM DAS AND ORS SON OF LATE BIPIN CH DAS RESIDENT OF CHANGSARI VILLAGE BALIBILL PO AND PS CHANGSARI KAMRUP GUWAHATI 781101 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP AMINGAON 781301 4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT ASSAM 5:PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : KAUSHIK JAIN, MR. S C KEYAL Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE,MR. S K GHOSH,SC, FOREST Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 12.02.2026 Heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. When the matter is taken up, Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel submits that he has already informed the learned counsel for the opposite party/writ petitioner and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is stated to have no objection, if the order dated 11.09.2025 is corrected. 3. This Court on 11.09.2025 has passed the following orders:- “Heard Mr. S. K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner. In terms of the order dated 08.09.2025, Lt. Col. B. S. Halli, the Project Manager under Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) at Guwahati, Amingaon, has appeared before this Court. He submits that although he is not the Chief Construction Engineer, R & D Project Management Officer, the competent authority who has to take a call on the issue of payment of exgratia of Rs. 78,94,750/-, as placed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon on 07.08.2019, (the Office) has now been shifted from Hyderabad to Kolkata. Therefore, he prays that 4 (four) weeks time may be granted to sort out the issue. Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, DRDO, submits that the stand of the DRDO has already been brought on record by way of affidavit-in-opposition. However, since the payment of ex-gratia of Rs. 78,94,750/- has been received 6 (six) months back and in view of the shifting of the office from Hyderabad to Kolkata, some time may be granted to sort out the issue, as prayed for by Lt. Col. B. S. Halli, the Project Manager. Although the Chief Construction Engineer, R & D Project Management Officer, Ministry of Defence Research and Development Organization, Guwahati was directed to remain present today, the officer who appeared today is not the Chief Construction Engineer. Nevertheless, considering the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, 4 (four) weeks time is granted to the respondents to resolve the issue. It is expected that the authorities in the DRDO shall sort out the issue of payment of ex-gratia by the next date of listing. Accordingly, let this matter be listed on 16.10.2025. The personal appearance of Lt. Cl. B. S. Halli is dispensed with. However, in the event of failure on the part of the respondents to resolve the matter by the next date, the concerned authority, including the Chief Construction Engineer, R&D Project Management Officer, shall remain present before this Court.” 4. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the sentence “However since the payment of ex-gratia of Rs. 78,94,750/- has been received 6 (six) months back” has been Page No.# 3/3 inadvertently recorded, as no ex-gratia amount has been received six months back. Therefore, the above sentence recorded by this Court may be deleted. 5. He submits that the process of ex-gratia amount determined by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup and as approved by the Government is under process as the amount is to be released by the Ministry of Defence for, for which, certain mandatory formalities are to be completed. 6. Perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the applicant also reflects that no statement is made as regards receipt of the ex-gratia amount of Rs. 78,94,750/- six months back. 7. Considering above, I am of the view that the sentence “However since the payment of ex-gratia of Rs. 78,94,750/- has been received 6 (six) months back” appears to be inadvertently recorded. 8. In view of the above, the sentence “However since the payment of ex-gratia of Rs. 78,94,750/- has been received 6 (six) months back” stands deleted. 9. As Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel assures to complete the process within the timeline as granted by this Court, the respondent authorities are expected to complete the same. 10. This order shall form a part of the order dated 11.09.2025. I.A. stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant