GAHC010241272025 2025:GAU-AS:16474

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WP(C)/6708/2025

SRI PALLAB CHETIA

S/O KRISHNA CHETIA. R/O H.NO. 14, LICHUBAGAN, NEAR

HENGRABARIL.P. SCHOOL, HENGRABARI, KAMRUPM, GUWAHATI,

ASSAM. PIN 781036.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PWRD

ROAD DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6, ASSAM.

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY

TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI-6

ASSAM

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

PWD ROADS ASSAM

CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- 3

DIST KAMRUP M

ASSAM.

4:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

PWD ROAD

NORTH LAKHIMPUR ROAD CIRCLE

LAKHIMPUR

DIST LAKHIMPUR

ASSAM

PIN 787001.

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD JONAI TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION SILAPATHAR ASSAM PIN 787059.

6:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN 781028 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K. Mazumdar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. M. Das, Standing Counsel Mr. R.K. Talukdar, Standing Counsel BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

ORDER

Date : 28.11.2025 Heard Mr. P.K. Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. M. Das, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the PWD and Mr. R.K. Talukdar, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Accountant General, Assam.

2. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondent Authorities in not making payment of the amount to which the petitioner is entitled to upon completion of the work.

3. The petitioner herein has executed various contractual works under the Public Works Roads Department of the State of Assam.

4. The case of the petitioner herein is that the Respondent Authorities published a Notice Inviting Tender under the scheme “Improvement of road from Pukia Tiniali to Jonai Tiniali under signature project for the year 2018–19.” The petitioner participated in the said tender process and, being an eligible bidder, was issued Work Order No. CE/STBR/S.P./33/2018-19/11 dated 11.02.2019 by the Respondent Authorities.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner successfully completed the work within the stipulated time through respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 5, and upon completion of the work, the Respondent Authorities issued a completion certificate to the petitioner on 03.03.2021. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 issued a No Liability Certificate on 06.06.2024, wherein the date of completion of the work was mentioned as 03.02.2021, the actual date of completion as 12.02.2021, and the defect liability period as 3 (three) years from the date of completion, i.e., up to

12.02.2024.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defect liability period for the aforesaid work order expired on 12.02.2024 and that an amount of Rs. 20,06,376/- is presently due to the petitioner from the Respondent Authorities after necessary adjustments. However, despite the defect liability period being over, the said amount has not been released without any valid reason. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has approached the authorities on several occasions for payment of the bills, and although the respondents repeatedly assured him that the bills would be cleared, but, no payment has been made till date.

7. Ms. M. Das, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the PWD submitted that, as to whether, the petitioner has completed the work in terms with the work order in question is a subject matter of verification which needs to be carried out by the Respondent Authorities and it is only on the basis of such verification, the actual entitlement of the petitioner could be ascertained.

8. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met if a direction is given to the Respondent Authorities to verify, as to whether, the petitioner has completed the s