M/S H Jemu Enterprises v. The State of Nagaland and 3 Ors

ORDER

03.06.2024 Heard Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents.

¶2The instant writ petition has been filed claiming an amount of Rs. 5,45,541/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty-five Thousand Five Hundred and Forty-one) from the respondents. It is relevant to take note of that the respondent No. 4 was issued 2 (two) Work Orders. One Work Order was in respect of construction of a Tube Well with IRP (1 No.) at Tesophenyu Village wherein a total estimated cost was Rs. 16,05,055/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Five Thousand Fifty-five). The second Work Order was of the same date for construction of 10,000 litres RCC Reservoir Tank (1 No.) at Tesophenyu Village of a value of Rs. 2,40,387.58/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Seven and Fifty-eight Paise). It has been alleged by the petitioner herein that the petitioner had in fact been sub-contracted by the respondent No. 4 to carry out the said work and as only some payment had been made and not the entire amount, the petitioner, therefore, has filed the instant writ petition seeking direction for payment of Rs. 5,45,541/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty-five Thousand Five Page No.# 3/4 Hundred and Forty-one).

¶3On the other hand, this Court duly takes note of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 wherein it has been stated at paragraph 4 that against the amount of Rs. 16,05,055/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Five Thousand Fifty-five) and an amount of Rs. 15,88,812/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Eighty-eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Twelve) had been duly paid and against the amount of Rs. 2,40,387.58/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty-seven and Fifty-eight Paise) an amount of Rs. 2,37,498/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty-seven Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety-eight) had been duly paid. All these payments were paid to the respondent No. 4 to whom the contract was awarded. This Court also have taken note of the enclosures to the said affidavit which categorically shows that the said amounts were duly paid to the respondent No. 4 by way of Bank Transfer.

¶4Under such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the grievance of the petitioner can at best be a grievance against the respondent No. 4 and not against the State authorities. In that view of the matter, the remedy of the petitioner would be qua respondent No. 4 and not the State respondents. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the instant writ petition is not maintainable against the State respondents for which the instant proceedings are dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

¶5Be that as it may, the dismissal of the instant petition shall not preclude the petitioner to approach the civil courts for Page No.# 4/4 seeking relief against the respondent No. 4, if so permissible under law.

Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020003162022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/119/2022 M/S H JEMU ENTERPRISES GOVT. CONTRACTOR AND SUPPLIER., REG.NO. NPW/CL-1/657. I NSCU NO.3421, OPP PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, PURANA BAAZAR, DIMAPUR-797112, NAGALAND. REPRESENTED BY SHRI. M. JEMU VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, PHED, NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:THE FINANCE COMMISSIONER FINANCE DEPARTMENT NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PHED(RURAL) NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE CHAIRMAN WATSAN COMMITTEE TSEOPHENYU VILLAGE TSEMINYU NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : MOA JAMIR Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH