M/s Malina Enterprise vs The State Of Assam & Ors.

Heard Mr. M. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. R. R. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Forest Department. I have also heard Ms. N. Choudhury, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the BTC.

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing the order dated 20.11.2025 whereby the claim of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.10,96,14,448/- was reduced to Rs.7,14,18,171/-. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that the said amount of Rs.10,96,14,448/- was admitted by the Respondents in the affidavit filed in contempt proceedings being Contempt Case (Civil) No.476/2022 and therefore, the Respondents later on cannot resile from their stand in the affidavit and reduce the amount.

This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has perused the impugned order dated 20.11.2025. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 20.11.2025, it is seen that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 24.11.2021, an Enquiry Committee was constituted vide an order dated 04.10.2024 in order to examine and verify the claims of the Petitioner with respect to the supply of GCI Sheets, tent house materials and blankets which were claimed to have been supplied by the Petitioner. The Enquiry Committee examined and verified the claims of the Petitioner and it was found that the Petitioner delivered materials as per the terms and conditions of the supply order issued in that regard. It was further mentioned that as per the report dated 11.02.2025 submitted by the Rate Verification Team, it was found that rates approved against one set of tent house materials, which was Rs.85,194/- was on the higher side. As per the Rate Verification Team, the rate of one set tent house material should lie in between Rs.13,975/- to Rs.19,170/-. Be that as it may, the Respondents upon verification had arrived at a conclusion that the Petitioner is only entitled to Rs.7,14,18,171/-.

The case of the Petitioner in this context is that in the affidavit-in-opposition which was filed by one Shri Akash Deep, Principal Secretary, Bodoland Territorial Council, it was mentioned that the Petitioner was entitled to Rs.10,96,14,448/- after due verification and therefore the Respondents cannot reduce the said amount.

This Court finds it also relevant to take note of that the Petitioner was issued the work order on 31.12.2020 for supply of the GCI Sheets-TATA Shakti, tent house materials and blankets. What is the quantity of supply to be made by the Petitioner and at what rates are not a part of the document enclosed before this Court.

The subsequent documents which are Annexures 5 and 6 are documents forwarded by the Additional PCCF cum CHD, Forests, BTC forwarding the bill, challan and advice slip requesting sanction and release of funds.

This Court also takes note of that the Secretary, BTC had issued an order on 16.03.2021 thereby according sanction and release of an amount of Rs.11,77,11,611/- to the CHD, Forest, BTC, Kokrajhar for bill for supply of GCI sheets, solar torch, tents, and woolen blankets to be used by the frontline staffs of different forest division of the BTC area against the proposals which were submitted by the CHD, Forest, BTC dated 08.03.2021.

Be that as it may, it appears that the Petitioner having not received any amount, the Petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.2950/2021. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 24.11.2021 disposed of the said writ petition directing the Principal Secretary, BTC, Kokrajhar to make necessary enquiry and verification into the claims made by the Petitioner which were stated to be admitted by the BTC Authorities and thereupon to make payment in terms with the guidelines laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tamsher Ali and Others Vs. State of Assam and Others reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1.

The records further reveal that on account of payments not being made, a contempt proceedings was initiated by the Petitioner which was registered and numbered as Contempt Case (C) No.476/2022. In the said contempt proceedings, the Contemnor No.2 filed an affidavit wherein he admitted that upon due verification, it was found that the amount of Rs.10,96,14,448/- was payable by the Bodoland Territorial Council to the Petitioner and further stated that out of the said amount, 10% would be paid in the year 2025-26.

The records further reveal that in pursuance to the said affidavit, an amount of Rs.1,14,18,171/- was paid to the Petitioner. Subsequent to the filing of the affidavit by the said Shri Akash Deep, an Enquiry Committee was constituted on 04.10.2024 wherein enquiry was conducted as to whether the Petitioner had duly supplied the goods and further as to whether the rate at which the Petitioner supplied the goods was reasonable. It was found upon enquiry that the Petitioner had duly supplied the goods but the rate at which the Petitioner supplied was unreasonable and exorbitant inasmuch as, it was the report of the Rate Verification Team that the rate of one set of tent house material should lie in between Rs.13,975/- to Rs.19,170/-.

In the above context, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that on account of the admission on the part of Shri Akash Deep in the contempt proceedings, this Court should pass a direction upon the BTC to make the payment. It is a well settled principle of law that a contempt proceedings cannot be initiated against the BTC. The contempt proceedings was initiated against the officials who in their personal capacity had submitted the affidavit. It is not the stand of the BTC in their affidavits which were filed in the writ proceedings or in the present proceedings that the Petitioner is entitled to the said amount. Under such circumstances, the stand which have been taken by Shri Akash Deep by filing an affidavit in the contempt proceedings is a stand personally taken by the said official.

This Court also finds it relevant to observe that the question as to whether the rate claimed by the Petitioner is reasonable or not is a question of fact which can only be adjudicated on the basis of evidence. Merely on the basis of an admission by an official in his personal capacity in a contempt proceedings, this Court cannot interfere with the impugned order and direct that the BTC was liable to pay the amount of Rs.10,96,14,448/- and not the amount of Rs.7,14,18,171/-.

This Court therefore is not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for which the writ petition stands dismissed.

Before parting with the records, this Court however observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition is on the ground of not entertaining the writ petition for the reasons aforementioned. Under such circumstances, it shall not preclude or prejudice the Petitioner to approach the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction to challenge the impugned order dated 20.11.2025 and further seek recovery of any further amount. The period from 24.11.2021 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation.