Diganta Kalita vs. The State Of Assam And 5 Ors.

Held

The Court noted that the learned counsels for both the petitioner and the respondents submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the decision of the Gauhati High Court dated December 17, 2021, passed in WP(C) No. 6079/2021. In light of this submission, the Court disposed of the present writ petition in terms of the aforementioned order. The specific findings or reasoning from the cited judgment were not detailed in this order, but the operative direction was to follow the precedent. Therefore, the Court implicitly held that the principles laid down in WP(C) No. 6079/2021 would govern the release of the sanctioned running bills to the petitioner. The exact relief granted would be as per the cited judgment, which was not elaborated upon here.

Facts

The petitioner, Diganta Kalita, was awarded two work orders by the Additional Chief Engineer-cum-Director, PWD, Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) for road construction projects in Baksa District for the years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The total value of the work orders was Rs. 85,92,846.00 and Rs. 94,85,672.00 respectively. The petitioner completed 40.62% of the first project and 37.12% of the second project as of June 24, 2019. Despite sanctioning running bills amounting to Rs. 34,90,587/- (after deductions for security and GST) for the first project and Rs. 35,21,758/- for the second project, the BTC PWD authorities had not yet paid the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking payment of the sanctioned running bills.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents, the State of Assam and the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) authorities, are legally obligated to release the sanctioned running bills to the petitioner for the completed portions of the road construction projects, considering the deductions made for security and GST. Contentions: Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the sanctioned amounts, despite deductions, are due and payable for the work completed. The delay in payment is causing financial hardship and is contrary to the terms of the work orders. Revenue/State (Respondents): The respondents, through their counsel, submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is covered by a previous decision of the Gauhati High Court dated December 17, 2021, in WP(C) No. 6079/2021. They did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim but relied on the precedent.