Manaj Kumar Brahma v. Anurag Goel and Anr

ORDER

12.08.2024

¶1Heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner was allotted work under "Construction of road with earth filling and sand gravelling with 1 No. Box culvert near Manaj Brahma house to main road at North Patgaon village" under SOPD fund for the year 2017-2018. Though the petitioner had completed the contract work for the amount of Rs.31,65,000/-, the said amount was not paid to the petitioner.

¶2Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed WP(C) 316/2022, which was disposed of, vide order dated 21.01.2022. Vide order dated 21.01.2022 passed in WP(C) 316/2022, the BTC authorities were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner, in accordance with the decision in Tamsher Ali vs. State of Assam & Others, reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1. The petitioner's counsel submits that the respondent no.1 in his affidavit has admitted that the petitioner is entitled to payment of Rs.32,00,000/-.

¶3Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the BTC submits that in terms of paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed by the respondent no.1, the petitioner is entitled to payment of Rs.32,00,000/-. He has also submitted a letter dated

09.08.2024 issued by the Secretary, BTC, which is to the effect that the BTC had received Rs.40150.00 lakh (Rupees four hundred one crore fifty) from the Government of Assam, being 50% of the SOPD fund from the budget allocation to BTC for the Financial Year 2024-2025 as 1st installment. He submits that 10% Page No.# 3/3 of the allotted fund would be kept reserved for meeting the contractual payments arising out of assessed liabilities and that the petitioner would also be paid from the said fund, inasmuch as, the petitioner is at Sl. No.95 of the list made by the BTC for payment of outstanding dues.

¶4In view of the admission made by the respondents that the petitioner will be paid Rs.32,00,000/- from the 1st installment of the SOPD fund given by the Government of Assam to the BTC, the respondents should pay the admitted amount to the petitioner, at the earliest and preferably within 4 (four) months from today.

¶5The letter dated 09.08.2024 issued by the Secretary, BTC, is made a part of the record and marked as Annexure-X.

¶6The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010237422022 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oCont.Cas(C)/674/2022o MANAJoKUMARoBRAHMAo S/O-oPRADIPoKUMARoBRAHMA,o R/O-oVILLAGEoNORTHoPATGAON,o P.O-oPATGAON,o DIST-oKOKRAJHAR,oBTR,oASSAM VERSUSo ANURAGoGOELoANDoANRo PRINCIPALoSECRETARY,oBODOLANDoTERRITORIALoCOUNCIL,oBODOFAo NWGWR,oKOKRAJHAR,oBTR,oASSAM-783370. 2:DHIRAJoSOUD oACS oSECRETARY oPNRD oBODOLANDoTERRITORIALoCOUNCIL oBODOFAoNWGWR oKOKRAJHAR oBTR oASSAM oPIN-o783370.o o o AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMRoRoDHAR,oMRS.oAoBASUMATARY,MRoBoCoMUCHAHARYo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oMR.oDoSAIKIAo(r-1,2),oMR.oSoBORAo(r-1,2),MR.oBoCHOUDHURYo (r-1,2),MRoPoNAYAK,MR.oRoKoMUSHAHARYoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA