AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. P. K. Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. P. Hazarika, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.
The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondent Authorities in not releasing the payment to which the Petitioner is entitled upon completion of the work.
The Petitioner herein is a contractor by profession and earns his livelihood by executing contract works under the Soil Conservation Department, Government of Assam.
The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Respondent Authorities issued a Notice Inviting Tender under the Soil Conservation Department for the scheme, namely, “Protective Afforestation Plantation at Geandhia Pathar (Part-I) under SOPD-G during the year 2019-20”, under the Darrang Soil Conservation Division, Mangaldoi. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner submitted his tender papers before the said Department. Being the eligible bidder, the Respondent Authorities issued a work order dated 14.08.2019 in favour of the Petitioner.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner completed the said work within the stipulated time as prescribed in the work order and upon completion of the work, the Respondent Authorities issued a work completion certificate to the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted bills amounting to Rs.16,62,500/- before the office of the Respondent Authorities along with the work completion certificates for release of the payment.
It is further the case of the Petitioner that the aforesaid amount was duly verified by the Respondent Authorities. However, in spite of such verification, the admitted bill amount has not been released. It is further averred in the writ petition that the Petitioner approached the Respondent Authorities on several occasions for release of the said amount, however, the amount of Rs.16,62,500/- still remains unpaid. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
This Court issued notice on 18.09.2024. Pursuant thereto, on 08.04.2025 the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed an affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it has been clearly stated that the Petitioner is entitled to 75% of the work completed amounting to Rs. 9.975 lakhs. The same is apparent from the communication issued by the Divisional Officer, Darrang Soil Conservation Division to the Director, Soil Conservation Department, Assam which has been annexed to the said affidavit-in-opposition. The Administrative Approval accorded by the Soil Conservation Department in this regard has also been annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition. Paragraph No. 7 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, being relevant for the purpose of the present case is reproduced hereinbelow:
“7.That as regard to the statements made in Para No.7 of the instant writ petition, the answering deponent begs to state that during the inspection conducted by the Divisional Officer of Darrang Soil Conservation Division in Mangaldai on 26th September, 2020, it was reported that all plants got damaged in the project site due to severe flash floods and inundation.
Despite making efforts to sustain the sapling, the task has proved to be extremely challenging. One of the primary reasons for this is the low-lying situation of the project site, which has caused issues with soil drainage, Additionally, the malicious activities of the encroachers have further exacerbated the problem and made it all the more difficult to replant the saplings. As stated above as per the instructions of the Director of Soil Conservation, Assam vide Letter No. SCH-177/F/2022-23/225 dated 08.04.2022 the Foreclosure Report was submitted by the Divisional Officer vide Letter No. DD/SCH1/2022-23/18 dated 12.04.2022. Accordingly the Administrative Department approved the foreclosure of 25% works vide letter No. Soil.36/2022/68 dated 15.07.2022. According to the Foreclosure Report, it was mentioned that due to severe flooding and water-logged conditions that persisted for the next two years of the project implementation, it was not financially or operationally practical to undertake the reconstruction of the project. The report further elaborated that the flooding caused extensive damage to the existing plantation work. The decision to foreclose the project was made after careful consideration of all the factors, including the potential risks and costs associated with continuing the project in such unfavourable conditions.
As per the Completion Report in accordance with PWD Format, it was discovered that the contractor had completed 75% of the work in all aspects, adhering to the specifications, drawings, and agreements.
Accordingly, after 75% physical progress of the work, the FOC demand proposal was submitted by the Divisional Officer vide Letter No. DD/FOC/201920/747 dated 12.03.2020 but the proposal could not be processed further at the fag end of the financial year 2020-21 since the work was not 100% completed, only those proposals were considered which were 100% completed. The FOC demand proposal was submitted again by the Divisional Officer vide Letter No. DD/FOC/2022-23/122 dated 06.07.2022 but validity of Administrative Approval expired on 26.07.2022. Therefore, the proposal could not be processed further.”
Taking into account the above, this Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions:
The Respondent Authorities are directed to pay the Petitioner the admitted amount of Rs.9.975 Lakhs or such amount after statutory deductions.
The said exercise be completed within a period of 6 (six) months from the date a certified copy of the instant judgment is served upon the Respondent No. 3, i.e., the Director of Soil conservation, Assam.
Any amount paid during the pendency of the present proceedings would be set off at the time of disbursal of the amounts to the Petitioner.
This Court further observes that in respect to the remaining amount which is not admitted by the respondents, the Petitioner is granted the liberty to approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction, if so advised. Further to that, the period from 10.09.2024, i.e., the date of filing of the present writ petition till today be excluded while computing the period of limitation.