VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Gauhati High Court 2023 › High Court of Gauhati

M/S. Barthakur and Associates v. The State of Assam and 3 Ors

Disposed Of
Court
High Court of Gauhati
Decided
17 May 2023
Bench
Manish Choudhuryauthor
Case no.
WP(C) 7244/2019

Judgment

ORDER Date : 17-05-2023 Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, GDD and GMC for all the respondents.

¶2The petitioner is a Consultant Architect Firm registered under the Council of Architecture [CoA]. A Notice inviting Expression of Interest [EoI] was issued by the respondent GMC on 21.03.2013 inviting EoI from qualified, experienced, competent and financially sound architectural firms for empanelment of Architects/Architectural Firm for the respondent GMC for rendering consultancy services for its different projects. After empanelment of the petitioner firm, the petitioner was entrusted three works viz. [i] consultancy services for preparation and submission of DPR for proposed market at Pub-Sarania; [ii] consultancy services for preparation and submission of DPR for proposed market at Fatasil; and [ii] consultancy services for preparation and submission of DPR for proposed zonal office at Dispur. As per the preliminary work orders/formal work orders, the payments were to be made on the estimated costs valued on the basis of rates as per the Scheduled of Rates of APWD [Building].

¶3According to the petitioner firm, it had provided consultancy service for preparation and submission of DPRs in respect of the three projects satisfactorily and had thereafter, prepared the bills for payment towards the consultancy services rendered vide [i] Invoice no. BA/BILL/FM/04/16-17 dated

20.06.2021; [ii] Invoice no. BA/BILL/FM/05/16-17 dated 20.06.2016; and [iii] Invoice no. BA/BILL/GMC/ZOB/02/16 dated 20.06.2016. After implementation of Page No.# 3/4 the GST regime, the petitioner firm by including GST, submitted revised invoices vide [i] Invoice no. BA/BILL/FM/05/17-18 dated 10.07.2017; [ii] Invoice no. BA/BILL/FM/06/17-18 dated 10.07.2017; and [iii] Invoice no. BA/BILL/GMC/ZOB/03/17-17 dated 07.07.2017; for a total amount of Rs. 14,77,835/-. The petitioner firm has averred that on the basis of the invoices submitted prior to the GST regime, the petitioners were paid two amounts vide [i] cheque no. 587332 dated 06.09.2014 & [ii] Cheque no. 614953 dated

09.03.2016. When after repeated approaches to the respondent GMC authorities from the year 2017 onwards for disbursal of the balance amount, the petitioner did not receive the same, the instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent GMC authorities to process the bills submitted by the petitioner firm and to disburse the balance amount.

¶4Mr. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, GMC has submitted that he has received instructions but the same are not sufficient to file counter affidavit traversing the contentions of the petitioner. In such view of the matter, he has submitted that since the petitioner firm has claimed that after completing the three works of consultancy services, it has submitted the bills already and has also received a part of the bill amount, this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities in the GMC to examine and verify the bills submitted by the petitioner firm and if after such examination and verification, the petitioner is found entitled to any amount for the three works claimed to be completed by it, to disburse the said amount within reasonable time period.

¶5Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed to the above Page No.# 4/4 submission made by Mr. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, GMC.

¶6The respondent authorities were put to notice as far back as on 25.09.2019 but till date no responses has been filed traversing or admitting the claim of the petitioner.

¶7In view of the broad consensus arrived at the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that instead of keeping this writ petition pending for any further period, the same can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities in the GMC, more particularly, the Commissioner, GMC to examine and verify the claim of the petitioner in respect of the three revised invoices for disbursal of the amount for rendering consultancy services in connection with the three works, mentioned above, and if after such examination and verification of the revised invoices submitted by the petitioner firm, it is found entitled to any amount beyond the amount already disbursed to it, the bills of the petitioner firm shall be processed for disbursal of the balance within a reasonable time period. On query, Mr. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, GMC has submitted that a period of 4 [four] months will be a reasonable period. It is accordingly ordered. The petitioner shall submit a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition at the office of the Commissioner, GMC for the said authority for taking the necessary steps from his end.

¶8This order disposes of the writ petition. No cost.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Case details

Parties and counsel

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010221822019 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/7244/2019o M/S.oBARTHAKURoANDoASSOCIATESo HAVINGoITSoREGISTEREDoOFFICEoAToSHARMAoANDoSHARMAoMARKETo (oFIRSToFLOOR),oR.G.oBARUAHoROAD,oCHANDMARI,oDIST-oKAMRUPo(M),o PIN-o781003,oASSAM.oREPRESENTEDoBYoAR.oBUDHINoBORTHAKUR,oAGEDo ABOUTo48oYEARS,oS/O-oSRIoPADMAoBORTHAKUR,oR/O-o5THoBYEoLANE,o SANTINILOYoAPARTMENT,oZOO-NARENGIoROAD,oBLOCKoNO.oE-3,oP.O.o BAMUNIMAIDM,oNEARoGITANAGARoTHANA,oGUWAHATI-o781021,oASSAM. VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo3oORS.o REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.o OFoASSAM,oGUWAHATIoDEVELOPMENToDEPARTMENT,oDISPUR,o GUWAHATI-6. 2:GUWAHATIoMUNICIPALoCORPORATION oREPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoCOMMISSIONER oPANBAZAR oGUWAHATI-1. 3:THEoCHIEFoENGINEER oGUWAHATIoMUNICIPALoCORPORATION oPANBAZAR oGUWAHATI-1. 4:THEoEXECUTIVEoENGINEER oGUWAHATIoMUNICIPALoCORPORATIONo PANBAZAR oGUWAHATI-1o AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oRoGOSWAMIo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oSC,oGMCoo Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

Source: High Court of Gauhati, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.