Sri Lokam Sagma v. The State of A.P

ORDER Date : 10-08-2023 Heard Mr. Gamken Bam, learned counsel, who prays for an adjournment on behalf of Mr. Jumgam Jini, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Page No.# 4/10

Also heard Ms. Tsering Wangmo, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 5; and Mr. Chorpok Modi, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 6.

Though an adjournment has been sought for by Mr. Bam, learned counsel, on behalf of Mr. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioner; but having regard to the fact that the writ petition pertains to the year 2016 and the nature of issue raised in the petition; this writ petition is hereby taken-up for final disposal.

The writ petitioners, 11 in nos., have filed this petition claiming Rs. 30,10,999/- alleged to have been illegally deducted by the respondent authorities including the private respondent No. 6 from the total sanctioned amount of the bills against the works executed by them.

The details of the deduction made by the respondent authorities including the Respondent No. 6 amounting to Rs. 30,10,999/- has been indicated in paragraph No. 4 of the writ petition, which are, as under: Sl. No. Name of the contractors/ petitioners Name of the work Sanction amount After deducting in the name of labour cess, VAT 4%, 30% for official level and

for

court case/SIC/SIT/Monitoring, PIL /Vigilance/Audit, etc, the amount remains with the petitioners from the sanction amount are Total amount deducted and not paid to the contractors/ petitioners from

the sanction amount Sagma

i) Renovation of SPT 2(two) units staff quarter at Rs 311335/- Rs. 188665 Page No.# 5/10

ii) Maintenance of classroom

at Govt. ME School

Rs 311335/-

Rs. 188665

Sri Hinium Kame

i) C/o Porter track from Damin to Tarba village

ii) Renovation of school building 2 nos at Govt ME School

at Panyasang

Rs 311335/-

Rs 311335/-

Rs. 188665

Rs. 188665

Sri

Dake Tajik

i) C/o Porter track from Nampe to Halla village

ii) C/o Porter track from Nampe to Harik via Gillang village

Rs 310000/-

Rs 306500/-

Rs. 190000

Rs. 193500

Sri

Tado Providing

of drinking water at Damin Town Rs 308296/- Rs 191704 Sri

Ruba Sagmi C/o Log bridge over Henrik river between Ruba to Katuk Rs 303238/- Rs 196762 Sri

Rubu Taniang C/o WRSB over Pipa river at Pipa Rs 300000/- Rs 200000 Smti Lokam C/o CC footpath with drainage in Rs 308454/- Rs 191546 Page No.# 6/10 Anju and

around Damin town 1200 metres (approx) Smti Damin Appi C/o WRSB at Yasso

river between Damin to Cheya Rs 623000/- Rs 384333 Rs. 238667 Bhai

i) Maintenance and repairing of Girls Hostel at Govt. ME School

ii) Renovation of Teacher quarter at Govt. ME School Damin

Rs 200000/-

Rs 300000/-

Rs. 147000

Rs. 200000

Deepa C/o Porter track from Damin to Lorug Bogu Rs 311335/- Rs 188665 Tani C/o

Type-I Teacher Quarter at Govt. ME School Damin Rs 800000/- Rs 481505/- Rs 318495 Rs. 777000/- Rs. 4759001/- Rs. 30,10,999/- The State Respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, have contested the case, by filing an affidavit-in-opposition wherein, in paragraph No. 6 thereof; it has been stated that no excess deduction as alleged by the petitioners, was made by the respondent authorities while making the payment to the petitioners in respect of the bills, in question.

It has also been indicated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed, by annexing a letter, dated 18.03.2026, written to the Block Development Officer, CD Block, Kurung Kumey District, Damin, by the District Planning Officer, Kurung Kumey District, Koloriang, vide Memo. No. KK/BADP-28/DMN/2015-16, wherein, it has indicated the Page No.# 7/10 net amount payable to the petitioners thereof out of the works awarded to each of them, which are, as under: Sl. No. Name of the petitioner Name of the work Amount (-) deduction Net

amount payable Sagma C/o

BDO

i) Renovation of SPT 2(two) unit staff quarter at

ii) Maintenance of classroom

at Govt. ME School

L/Cess = 4878.00 4 % VAT = 19512.00 Royalty = 2275.00

L/Cess = 4878.00 4 % VAT = 19512.00 Royalty = 2275.00 Rs. 473335.00

Rs. 473335.00 Sri Hinium Kame C/o

BDO

i) C/o Porter track from Damin to Tarba village

ii) Renovation of school building 2 nos at Govt. ME School Panysang

L/Cess = 5000.00

L/Cess = 4878.00 4 % VAT = 19512.00 Royalty = 2275.00

Rs. 495000.00

Rs. 473335.00

Sri

Dake Tagik C/o

BDO

i) C/o Porter track from Nampe to Halla village

ii) C/o Porter track

from Nampe to Harik via Gillang village

L/cess = 5000.00

L/cess = 5000.00 Rs. 495000.00

Rs. 495000.00 Page No.# 8/10

Sri

Tado C/o

BDO Providing

of drinking water at Damin Town L/cess = 4773.00 4% VAT = 19091.00 Rs 476136.00 Sri

Rukba Sakmi C/o

BDO C/o Log bridge over Hanik river between Ruba to Katuk L/cess = 4789.00 4% VAT = 19157.00 Rs 476054.00 Sri

Rubu Taniang C/o

BDO C/o WRSB over Pipa river at Pipa L/cess = 5000.00 4% VAT = 20000.00 Rs 475000.00 Smti Lokam Anju C/o

BDO C/o CC footpath with drainage in and

around Damin town 1200 metres (approx) L/Cess = 4754.00 4 % VAT = 19015.00 Royalty = 7012.00

Rs 469219.00 Smti Damin Appi C/o

BDO C/o WRSB at Yasso

river between Damin to Cheya Rs 623000/- L/Cess = 6177.00 4 % VAT = 24920.00

Rs. 591903.00 Bhai C/o

BDO

i) Maintenance and repairing of Girls Hostel at Govt. ME School

ii) Renovation of Teacher quarter at Govt. ME School Damin

L/Cess = 4878.00 4 % VAT = 19512.00 Royalty = 2275.00

L/Cess = 4878.00 4 % VAT = 19512.00 Rs. 473335.00

Rs. 473335.00 Page No.# 9/10 Royalty = 2275.00

Deepa C/o

BDO C/o Porter track from Damin to Lorug Bogu L/Cess = 5000.00

Rs 495000.00 Tani C/o

BDO C/o

Type-I Teacher Quarter at Govt. ME School Damin Rs 800000/- L/Cess = 7687.00 4 % VAT = 30746.00 Royalty = 2275.00

Rs 759292.00

From the above; it transpires that the deduction alleged to have been made by the petitioners in paragraph No. 4 of the writ petition, have been denied by the Respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, as indicated hereinabove; wherein, the deduction made, appears to be a negligible one from each of the writ petitioners and permissible deductions such as local cess, 4% VAT, and royalty.

The affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the Respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, on

09.09.2019. Since then, though the learned counsel for the petitioners have been taking adjournments for filing of the affidavit-in-reply but as yet, no affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the petitioners denying the amount stated to be paid to each of the petitioners in paragraph No. 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, as indicated hereinabove.

In that view of the matter; there is no reason to disbelieve the stand of the Respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, that no illegal deductions was made from the petitioners as has been alleged in the writ petition but whatever deductions was made; the same Page No.# 10/10 was a legitimate and permissible deduction under the law.

In view of the above; no writ in the nature of writ of mandamus, as sought for by the petitioners, can be issued by the Court directing the respondent authorities to pay to the writ petitioners, the deducted amount from the bills of the petitioners. Accordingly, this writ petition shall stand disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioners, if, at all, they are aggrieved by the deductions made as per the letter, dated 18.11.2016, written to the Block Development Officer, CD Block, Kurung Kumey District, Damin, by the District Planning Officer, Kurung Kumey District, Koloriang, vide Memo. No. KK/BADP-28/DMN/2015-16, as indicated hereinabove; the petitioners may take recourse to appropriate remedy before the authority or the Court of competent jurisdiction, as may be permissible under the law.

The writ petition stands disposed of in terms above.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/10 GAHC040001242016 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o (ITANAGARoBENCH) CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/404/2016o 1:SRIoLOKAMoSAGMA S/OoLOKAMoTARI,oAGEoABOUTo35oYEARS,oVILLAGEoDAMIN,oPO/PSoDAMIN, DISTRICToKURUNGoKUMEY,oAP. 2:oSRIoHINIUMoKAME S/OoHINIUMoROI AGEoABOUTo34oYEARS VILLAGEoCHULLA PO/PSoDAMIN DISTRICToKURUNGoKUMEY AP. 3:oSRIoDAKEoTAJIK S/OoDAKEoTARIK AGEoABOUTo33oYEARS VILLAGEoNAMPE PO/PSoDAMIN DISTRICToKURUNGoKUMEY AP. 4:oSRIoDAMINoTADO S/OoDAMIN PO/PSoDAMIN DISTRICToKURUNGoKUMEY AP. 5:oSRIoRUBAoSAGMI S/OoRUBAoMESSANG AGEoABOUTo35oYEARS VILLAGEoRUBA PO/PSoDAMIN DISTRICToKURUNGoKUMEY AP. PageoNo.#o2/10 6:oSHRIoRUBAoTANIANG S/OoRUBAoTAKAP AGEoABOUTo37oYEARS VILLAGEoRUBA PO/PSoDAMIN DISTRICToKURUNGoKUMEY AP. 7:oSMTIoLOKAMoANJU W/OoLOKAMoSANGMA AGEoABOUTo21oYEARS VILLAGEoDAMINoTOWNoPO/PSoDAMIN DISTRICToKURUNGoKUMEY AP. 8:oSMTIoDAMINoAPPI W/OoDAMINoTADO AGEoABOUTo20oYEARS VILLAGEoDAMINoTOWNoPO/PSoDAMIN DISTRICToKURUNGoKUMEY AP. 9:oSRIoLOKAMoBHAI S/OoLOKAMoTAMA AGEoABOUTo40oYEARS VILLAGEoDAMINoTOWNoPO/PSoDAMIN DISTRICToKURUNGoKUMEY AP. 10:oSRIoLOKAMoDEEPA W/OoSRIoLOKAMoBHAI AGEoABOUTo33oYEARS VILLAGEoDAMINoTOWNoPO/PSoDAMIN DISTRICToKURUNGoKUMEY AP. 11:oSRIoLOKAMoTANIA S/OoLOKAMoTAGUNG AGEoABOUTo28oYEARS VILLAGEoDAMINoTOWNoPO/PSoDAMIN DISTRICToKURUNGoKUMEY AP VERSUS 1:THEoSTATEoOFoA.P. REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoSECRERTARYoPLANNING,oGOVT.oOFoAP, Page No.# 3/10 ITANAGAR 2:THE DIRECTOR PLANNING GOVT. OF AP ITANAGAR. 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLORIANG DISTRICT KURUNG KUMEY GOVT. OF AP. 4:THE CICLE OFFICER-CUM-CHAIRMAN DAMIN DISTRICT KURUNG KUMEY GOVT. OF AP. 5:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CD-BLOCK DAMIN DISTRICT KURUNG KUMEY GOVT. OF AP. 6:SRI BAKE BAKAM APO M ANJA Advocate for the Petitioner : J. Jini, G. Bam, T. Gadi, S. Ketan, S. Mibang, N. Gamdik, K. Jini. Advocate for the Respondent : U. Deka, C. Modi, A. Saring, T. Char, O. Modi, Bomyom Ori, N. Rama, K. Gara, GA (AP), N. Tania, N. Kakki, B. Joseph, A. Perme, T. Suraj BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA