GAHC010030942018

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/1096/2018

MADAN BORAH

S/O,. LT. SIKIRAM BORAH, VILL. BORACHUK, P.O. CHELAGURI, VIA

JAMUGURIHAT, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.

THROUGH- THE SECRETARY, TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ANIMAL

HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY.

2:THE DIRECTOR

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPTT.

ASSAM

CHANIKUTHI

GUWAHATI

3:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE

INTENSIVE CATTLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (ICDP)

TEZPUR

MISSION CHARIALI

P.O. TEZPUR

DIST. SONITPUR

ASSA

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the petitioner (s) : Mr. R. Mazumder, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Mr. J. K. Goswami, SC AH &Vet. Deptt.

Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 01.12.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. R. Mazumder, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. J. K. Goswami, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the Respondent Authorities to make payment of an amount of Rs.1,61,200/- to the petitioner along with adequate interest from the date of submission of the bill till the date of making payment.

3. It is relevant to take note of that the petitioner claims that the work order was issued on 28.01.1991 for carrying out various repairing works. The total value of the work order was Rs.1,61,200/-. It is the further claim of the petitioner that in the year 1993, the petitioner completed the work, but he had not received the payment. In that regard, a communication was issued to the Minister, Veterinary, Assam on 25.03.1993, but the said did not meet any favourable response. The petitioner thereupon waited for another 10 years and on 14.11.2003 issued a legal notice claiming the amount of Rs.1,61,200/- along with interest.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the meantime, there was a criminal investigation which led to a charge sheet and registration of a case being Special Case No.22(C)/1997, re- numbered as Special Case No.55/2004 wherein the petitioner was acquitted on the basis of the judgment and order dated 10.11.2016. It is the further case of the petitioner that pursuant to the said judgment, the petitioner issued another representation on 31.10.2017 claiming the said amount of Rs.1,61,200/-. The said amount, however, having not been paid, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the writ petition in the year 2018.

5. Mr. J. K. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that it is next to impossible on the part of the Respondent Authorities to carry out any verification taking into account that the alleged work order was issued in the year 1991, and thereupon, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the writ petition in the year 2018. He, therefore, submitted that any directions so passed, for carrying out the verification and then pay the petitioner cannot also be implemented in view of non-availability of the records. In addition to that, Mr. J. K. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents further submitted that no material has also been placed as to whether the petitioner has completed the work in question, and under such circumstances, this is not a case where this Court ought to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. This Court having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents is of the opinion that the petitioner having approached this Court after a passage of decades, from the date when the work orders were issued and there being no Work Completion Certificate also enclosed, any direction passed in the instant writ petition for verification and then to pay would seriously affec