Gauhati High Court
M/S Boruah And Co. Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 15 March, 2019
Author: Arup Kumar Goswami
Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010014702017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 1282/2017
1:M/S BORUAH AND CO. PVT. LTD.
A PVT. LTD. COMPANY ESTABLISHED AND INCORPORATED UNDER THE
INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT BASISTHA
CHARIALI, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, REP. BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI RAJIB BORUAH, S/O LT. JURAM BORUAH, R/O
BASISTHA CHARIALI, P.S. BASISTHA, GHY-29, DIST- KAMRUP METRO,
ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and 7 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPTT., DISPUR,
GHY-6
2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP RURAL
AMINGAON
GUWAHATI
3:THE ADDL. DY. COMMISSIONER REVENUE
KAMRUP RURAL
AMINGAON
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
NORTH GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
KAMRUP RURAL
AMINGAON
GUWAHATI
5:THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE MINISTRY OF SHIPPING
ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS
Page No.# 2/4
NEW DELHI
6:THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
SECTOR-10
DWARKA
NEW DELHI
7:THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF SHIPPING
ROAD TRANSPORT and HIGHWAYS
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT P.I.U.
SURAJ NAGAR
MUKUNDA PATH
G.S. ROAD
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-781022.
8:PUNJ LLOYD LTD.
PROJECT OFFICE
GUWAHATI NALBARI ROAD PROJECT AS04
AT and POST- DEUDUAR
CHANGSARI-781101
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.P K R CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : MRSR BORAH
Linked Case : WP(C) 1195/2017
1:MOHAN CHANDRA DEKA
S/O. MATHURA DEKA
R/O. MURARA
P.O. and P.S. RANGIA
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM.
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA and ANR.
REP. BY THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
Page No.# 3/4
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REGIONAL OFFICE GUWAHATI
NEDFI HOUSE
4TH FLOOR
G.S. ROAD
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006
2:PUNJ LLOYD LTD.
PROJECT OFFICE
GUWAHATI NALBARI ROAD
PROJECT AS04
P.O. DEUDUAR
CHANGSARI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN.- 781101.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.T H HAZARIKA
Advocate for the Respondent : MRSR BORASC
N.H.A.I.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI
ORDER
15.03.2019 Heard Mr. N.G. Kundu, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.1282/2017 and Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.1195/2017. Also heard Ms. R. Bora, learned counsel who appears for the National Highway Authorities of India.
Challenge in both the writ petitions is to notice(s) issued by M/s Punj Lloyd Ltd. directing the petitioners to remove unauthorised encroachment within the Right of Way (ROW) of National Highways. While in WP(C) No.1282/2017, the learned counsel for M/s Punj Lloyd Ltd. had entered appearance and their names are also reflected, there is no appearance on their behalf. In WP(C) No.1195/2017, though service is complete on M/s Punj Lloyd Ltd., none has entered appearance.
Notice was issued by M/s Punj Lloyd Ltd. in WP(C) No.1195/2017 on 27.02.2017 and in WP(C) No.1282/2017 on 23.02.2017 indicating in both the notices that unauthorised structures were noticed Page No.# 4/4 within the Right of Way (ROW) of National Highways (NH-31) in respect of Contract Package No.EW- II/AS-04 & AS-05. Accordingly, they were directed to remove structures. The learned counsel for the petitioners question the authority of M/s Punj Lloyd Ltd. to issue the notice(s) and also contend that notices are vague as no material particulars had been given.
Interim order was passed in both the writ petitions.
Ms. Bora has submitted that the work had since been completed and defect liability period has expired in respect of Contract Package No.EW-II/AS-04 on 23.07.2017 and in respect of Contract Package No.EW-II/AS-05 pm 20.03.2017 and accordingly, the defect liability certificates had been issued by the concerned engineer. In that view of the matter, when the work has been completed, these impugned notices dated 27.02.2017 and 23.02.2017 cannot be given effect to and, therefore, both writ petitions have become infructuous.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and more particularly in view of submission of Ms. Bora, it is considered appropriate to quash the impugned notices dated 27.02.2017 and 23.02.2017. Ordered accordingly.
The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Comparing Assistant