GAHC010240182022

2026:GAU-AS:814 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/7559/2022 M/S RANA CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERS PVT LTD SURAJ COMPLEX, ULUBARI CHARIALI, KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI-781007, ASSAM REP. BY ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS RANA ZAMAN, S/O. ALHAZ RAHMAN ALI, R/O. HOUSE NO. 62, RAHMAN MANSION, SOUTH SARANIA, P.O. ULUBAI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, GUWAHATI-781007.

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (ROADS), DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT.

ASSAM (ROADS)

CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003.

3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD NORTH KAMRUP TERRITORIAL ROADS DIVISION RANGIA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MR. R M DEKA,MS N MAHANTA,N GAUTAM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, B E F O R E Hon’ble MR . JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Advocate for the petitioner : Shri R.M. Deka, Advocate.

Advocate for the respondents : Shri B. Gogoi, SC, PWD.

Date on which judgment is : NA Reserved.

Date of pronouncement of : 22.01.2026.

Judgment.

Whether the pronouncement : NA.

is of the operative part of the judgment?

Whether the full judgment : Yes.

has been pronounced?

JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)

A communication dated 31.08.2022, issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD North Kamrup Territorial Roads Divisions, Rangia, whereby, the petitioner was requested to furnish relevant documents as proof of payment of forest royalty utilized for the work in question for taking necessary action for release of the forest royalty, is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The facts as projected, in brief, are that a work was allotted to the petitioner and for the execution of the same, forest royalty of Rs.40,59,340.00 has been realized. By the impugned communication dated 31.08.2022, the petitioner was directed to furnish proof of such payment for release of the aforesaid amount. Instead of taking the opportunity to submit proof of payment of forest royalty, the petitioner has questioned the validity and legality of the said move of the Department.

3. I have heard Shri R.M. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, PWD.

4. The primary contention of Shri Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no stipulation in the tender for making such deduction and this aspect was considered by this Court in a batch of writ petitions which was disposed of vide order dated 30.03.2017, the lead case, being WP(C)/1234/2017. In the said batch of cases, this Court had observed that though there was a reference in the Preamble regarding deduction on various charges, including forest royalty, in the absence of a specific clause in the contract, such deduction could not have been made. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to a judgment dated 30.06.2022, passed in WP(C)/9227/2019 wherein, it was held that in absence of any contract condition, when a contractor is unable to produce a certificate showing the use of forest produce on which royalty has been collected, the recovery from the bill against forest royalty cannot be made. A modality of claiming such amount which has been withheld by the Department has also been laid down in the form of a direction. The learned Counsel submits that the aforesaid direction would squarely cover the case of the petitioner and accordingly, a case for interference is made out.

5. Per contra, Shri Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the factual projection made on behalf of the petitioner is not wholly correct. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 16.07.2024 by the respondent no. 2, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that apart from Preamble 10 which stipulates deduction of charges, including forest royalty, there is a specific clause, being Clause No. 38 in the contract whereby such charges ar