Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 16 (GAU)

Chand Mohammad Ali v. State of Assam and Ors.

1995-01-17

A.K.PATNAIK

body1995
Heard Mr. AM Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Govt Advocate. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner's case is that pursuant to the tenders invited by the respondents and tenders submitted by him he was awarded the work of improvement of the road from the junction of N.H. 31 and N.H. 37 near Brahmaputra bridge to Khanapara and N.H. 37 via Bharalumukh. High Court, State Library. Ulubari and Ganeshguri Junction. A preliminary work order dated 12.4.91 was issued by the Addl. Chief Engineer. PWD (R). Central Zone. Assam (Annexure I) and pursuant to the said work order the petitioner completed the work and submitted a completion report on 12.12.91 to the Executive Engineer. PWD (Roads) Guwahati City Division. Guwahati (Annexure 4) and requested the said Executive Engineer. PWD (Roads) Guwahati City Division. Guwahati to make final payment as early as possible. Thereafter, the petitioner sent reminder and requested the Assistant Executive Engineer. PWD(R)GK Sub-Division by letter dated 15.6.92 (Annexure 5) to fix a dale for check measurement of the work done by him at the earliest opportunity. In response to the said request, the Assistant Executive Engineer. PWD (R) intimated the petitioner that the check measurement shall be done on 29.9.92 from 10 AM. But unfortunately no such measurement was actually done. In the circumstances, the petitioner sent notice dated 30.9.92 to the Chief Engineer, PWD. Assam (Annexure 7) requesting him to look into the mailer and to direct the Executive Engineer to make final payment by recording actual measurement of the work completed without any further delay. But no action was taken on the said notice of the petitioner. Petitioner also sent-a notice dated 24.6.93 to the Secretary. Public Works Department (R), Govt. of Assam, Dispur through his Advocate. Despite the said notice, payment of the final bill of the petitioner has not yet been made. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has no option but to move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for direction on the respondents to make final payment of the bill of the petitioner for the work done by him. 3. When the matter was listed for motion on 4.7.94. Rule was issued and Mr. SR Bhatlacharjee, learned Govt. Advocate accepted notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. When the matter was listed for motion on 4.7.94. Rule was issued and Mr. SR Bhatlacharjee, learned Govt. Advocate accepted notice on behalf of the respondents. Thereafter the mailer was listed on several dates, but no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents denying the averments in the writ petition. 4. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the absence of any affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, the Court should accept the averments in the writ petition that the petitioner has completed the work allotted to him under the work order dated 12.12.91 (Annexure 4) and direct the respondents to make final payment of his bill within stipulated period. Mr. Mazumdar also relied on the judgment of this Court dated 20.12.94 in Civil Rule No. 2831 of 1994 [1995 (1) GLJ 1211] in which in a similar case a direction was issued to the concern authorities to pay the amount due to the petitioner to a contractor within the period of 3 (three) months from the dale of receipt of the order. 5. Considering the fact that the averments in the writ petition, and in particular the averment of the petitioner that he has completed the work allotted to him under the preliminary work order dated 12.4.91 of the Addl. Chief Engineer, PWD (R) under Annexure I, have not been denied by the respondents by any affidavit-in-opposition, I dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the respondents shall finalise the bills of the petitioner relating to the aforesaid work after all possible verification and make payment to the petitioner I by the 31st March, 1995. The respondents shall also refund the security money totalling to Rs.39,490.00 to the petitioner if due. Liberty is however given to the respondents to move this Court within a month from today in case they find any difficulty in making the payment by 31st March, 1995 but it is made clear that the respondents will pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum in case liberty is sought and granted for payment after 31st March, 1995. 6. A certified copy of this order shall be filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.3, Addl. Chief Engineer, PWD (R), Central Zone, Assam, Guwahati within a week form today.