WP(C) 4563/2012. Gauhati High Court
| Case Number | WP(C) 4563/2012 |
| Judgement Date | August 14, 2020 |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
I N THE GAUHATI HI GH COURT
(THE HI GH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MI ZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP( C) No.4563/ 2012
Sri Bhabesh Ch.Baroowa
The State of Assam & 9 Others
… Respondents
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE ACHI NTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
Advocates for the Petitioner : Mr. AM Borah
Mr. I Choudhury
Mr.NJ Khataniar Mr. R Mazumdar
Advocates for the Respondents : Dr. B Ahmed,
Standing counsel
I rrigation Department
Mr. AU Ahmed,
For respondent
Nos. 5 to 10.
Date of hearing & Judgment : 14.08.2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER ( ORAL)
Heard Mr. R Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Dr. B Ahmed, learned Standing counsel, I rrigation Department and Mr. AU Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 10.
-
The petitioner upon participating in the tender process was issued with the work order dated 22.06.1993 for construction of Bholanath Bund (dam) in the Mangaldoi Division.
…Petitioner
-Versus-
-
I t is the case of the petitioner that under the terms of agreement, the respondent authorities were required to provide the petitioner with all major construction materials as provided in Clause 1.4 of the general terms and conditions. But as such materials were not provided, the petitioner could not perform the work in time. I nspite of it, the respondent authorities issued several letters to the petitioner to start and complete the work. In the aforesaid circumstances, by the order dated 31.08.2012 of the Executive Engineer, Mangaldoi Division, the work that was earlier allotted to the petitioner by the work order dated 22.06.1993 was cancelled. The said order of cancellation of 31.08.2012 has been assailed in this writ petition.
-
I t is stated that by the interim order dated 24.09.2012, this Court, on the premises that only 5% of the work remained incomplete had provided that the pendency of the work shall not be a bar for the respondent authorities to take final measurement of the work in the presence of the petitioner and that in the meantime, the balance of the work should not be entrusted to any once else.
-
However, by the order dated 07.04.2014, the writ petition was dismissed for default and, accordingly, the interim order also stood vacated. Subsequently, by the order dated 02.06.2014, the writ petition was restored and the interim order was also brought back into effect. But, again the writ petition was dismissed for default on 16.06.2014, this time the matter stood restored by the order dated 21.07.2014. Although, this...
To continue reading
Request your trial