GAHC010116862025 2025:GAU-AS:15733

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WP(C)/3027/2025

M/S DULAL DUTTA

A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR MR.

DULAL DUTTA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O AMAR CHANDRA DUTTA, R/O VILL- BORBIL, P.O.- DIGBAOI, PIN-786171, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS),

DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM

2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

DISPUR

GUWAHATI-781006

ASSAM

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

PWD (BORDER ROADS AND NEC WORKS)

ASSAM

CHANDMARI

GUWAHATI-781003

4:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER

PWD (ROADS)

EASTERN ZONE

DIBRUGARH

PIN-786001

ASSAM

5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

PWD (ROADS)

JORHAT NEC CIRCLE JORHAT ASSAM

6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINNER PWD (ROADS)

TINSUKIA STATE ROAD DIVISION TINSUKI Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. RB Gohain Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. B Gogoi, Addl.AG, Assam B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

ORDER

19.11.2025 Heard Mr. RB Gohain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. B Gogoi, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam as well as the learned Standing Counsel, PWD appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondent authorities in not refunding the security deposit to the tune of Rs.41,74,300/- to which the petitioner is entitled to upon completion of the work and expiry of the defect liability period of 12 months.

3. The facts of the instant case would show that the petitioner was issued a work namely “Development of Margherita Deomali Road in Tinsukia District (L = 13.25 km) in Assam under Social and Infrastructure Development Fund (SIDF)

(Ch.9000.m to Ch. 13255.00m) including construction of RCC Br.No.10/2 and 11/2 under SIDF (Package No.TSK-SP-3)”. The petitioner completed the work to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities in the year 2015 and in that regard a completion certificate was also issued on 29.09.2015.

4. The petitioner received all the bills in respect to the contract in question. However, the security deposit to the tune of Rs.41,74,300/- was not returned to the petitioner. Petitioner had represented the respondent authorities on various occasions, however, the respondent authorities having not returned the said security deposit, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent No.3 i.e. the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Border Roads and NEC Chandmari wherein it has been duly admitted that the petitioner had completed the work on 29.09.2015 and the petitioner was also entitled to the security deposit. It is, however, mentioned that on account of certain official lapses, the security deposit, went missing.

6. This Court had also taken note of paragraph No.9 of the said affidavit-in- opposition, wherein it is a categorical stand that the said amount of security deposit would be paid to the petitioner and further requested not to impose interest against the late release of payment of the security deposit to the petitioner.

7. This Court upon hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties is of the opinion that as the petitioner had duly completed the work to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities, the petitioner was entitled to the security deposit of an amount of Rs.41,74,300/- after the expiry of 12 months.

8. The respondents have also admitted that on account of certain official lapses, the said amount could not be paid to the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following directions:

(i). The respondent authorities and, more particularly, the respondent No.3 are directed to refund the security deposit of an amount of Rs.41,74,300/- within a period of 3(three) months from the date a certified copy