Pradip Kumar Das vs The State Of Assam & Ors.

Heard Mr. A. Chetia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General appears on behalf of the respondents.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction upon the Respondent Authorities to pay the outstanding dues in respect to the 8 works which the petitioner claims to have completed in the years 2002 and 2003. The details of the work orders, particulars of the works as well as the value and the work completion date have been provided at paragraph No. 3 of the writ petition in the form of a table which is reproduced hereinbelow:

It is the case of the petitioner that after completion of the works, certificates were issued and the petitioner thereupon had been pursuing the matter with the Respondent Authorities for payment. It is the further case of the petitioner that only in the year 2023 that the Chief Engineer (Roads), PWD asked the Executive Engineer, PWD to submit a demand proposal against the said works for onward necessary action.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that even the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works Roads Department had also written a letter to the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) on the basis of a representation submitted by the petitioner in connection with the non-submission of the demand proposal against the pending payment and requested the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), Assam to examine the matter and take necessary action. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that as no action was taken, the petitioner had been compelled to approach this Court.

The record reveals that the respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is categorically mentioned at paragraph No. 4 that even after repeated instructions, the petitioner failed to submit the original copies of the 8 bills, completion certificates, original agreement, PWO, formal work order, photographs, inspection report of the concerned Superintendent Engineer, etc., as is required for the demand submission proposal. It is further mentioned at paragraph No. 5 that the completion certificates which were enclosed by the petitioner to the writ petition appeared to be fake and fabricated, because the completion certificate as per requirement at that relevant point of time used to be only signed by the Executive Engineer and not by the Accounts Officer. In that regard, a proforma of a completion certificate which used to be issued at that relevant point of time was enclosed as Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-opposition.

This Court has duly taken note of that the petitioner has approached this Court only in the year 2025 against alleged dues which were payable sometime in the years 2002 and 2003 against the 8 works, the details of which have been provided in the table hereinabove. Approaching the Writ Court after decades questioning about non-payment affects the rights of the adversary from taking an effective defence.

The respondents have also categorically mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition, more particularly at paragraph No. 4 that it is difficult for them to even proceed with the submission of a demand proposal in view of the non-availability of the various documents. In addition to that, the respondents have also questioned the completion certificates which have been enclosed by the petitioner.

Considering that the petitioner has approached this Court after a long hiatus of 22 years, it is the opinion of this Court that it would not be equitable on the part of this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, inasmuch as the respondents herein would be prejudiced if any directions are issued.

In addition to that, it is also relevant to observe that the respondents dispute the very completion certificates on the basis of which the petitioner seeks to make the claim in the present proceedings.

Considering the above, this Court, therefore, is not inclined to entertain the writ petition, for which the writ petition stands dismissed.

Before parting with the record, this Court, however, observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude or prejudice the petitioner from approaching the competent Court of civil jurisdiction, if so permissible under law.

Further to that, the period during which the instant proceedings were pending, i.e., w.e.f. 17.02.2025 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation. The exclusion of the period and the liberty so granted hereinabove shall not be construed that this Court had extended the period of limitation.