M/S D J Enterprise vs. The State Of Assam And 5 Ors

Held

The Court held that since the respondent authorities, specifically Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, failed to appear and file a response despite being served and granted a final opportunity, the claim of the petitioner was not disputed. Applying the doctrine of non-traverse, the Court found that the work executed by the petitioner was admitted. Therefore, the Court directed Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, the Chairperson and Executive Officer of the Nalbari Municipal Board, to verify the admitted amounts payable to the petitioner based on the undisputed work executed. These admitted amounts were to be paid to the petitioner. The Court also specified that this entire exercise should be concluded within eight weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s D J Enterprise, represented by its proprietor, filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court. The petitioner sought payment for work done as per a work order issued by the Executive Officer, Nalbari Municipal Board (Respondent No. 6). The petitioner submitted two bills for work completed: Bill No. DJE/22-23/41 dated 06.10.2022 for Rs. 3,06,456/- for the period 20.07.2022 to 31.07.2022, and Bill No. DJE/22-23/42 dated 06.10.2022 for Rs. 2,29,842/- for the period 01.08.2022 to 09.08.2022. These amounts, including GST, remained unpaid. The petitioner had previously made a representation on 03.07.2023 to respondents 4, 5, and 6 for early release of payment. The petitioner stated they had already paid the GST component.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities are liable to make payment of the admitted amounts of Rs. 3,06,456/- and Rs. 2,29,842/- to the petitioner for the work executed as per the work order issued by the Nalbari Municipal Board. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the work executed was undisputed and the bills submitted were for admitted amounts. They relied on the documents annexed to the pleadings to substantiate their claim and prayed for appropriate directions to the respondents to release the payment. The petitioner also highlighted that they had already paid the GST component from their end and were facing financial distress due to non-payment. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment notes that despite being duly served, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (Chairperson and Executive Officer, Nalbari Municipal Board) did not appear. Consequently, the Court adopted the doctrine of non-traverse, holding that the claim of the petitioner was not denied or disputed by the concerned respondents. No specific arguments or reliance on provisions/circulars were recorded for the respondents.