Gauhati High Court
Highbrow vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 30 July, 2021
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010160272020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4709/2020
HIGHBROW
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HASINA RAHMAN CHOUDHURY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, D/O MATABUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DIMPUR, PO BISHNU NAGAR, DIST KARIMGANJ,
ASSAM 788781
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI
781006
2:THE UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND
EMPLOYMENT
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
GOVT. OF INDIA
NEW DELHI
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006
4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006
5:THE DIRECTOR
EMPLOYMENT AND CRAFTSMAN TRAINING ASSAM
Page No.# 2/4
REHABARI
GUWAHATI 78100
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 30-07-2021 The Court proceedings have been conducted through online court proceeding services.
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Deuri, learned Junior Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 3; Ms. J. Sarma, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent no. 2; Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department; and Mr. A. Alam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.P. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Employment and Craftsman Training for respondent no. 5.
3. The projected case of the petitioner is that the petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, is a registered Vocational Training Provider (VTP) in E-procurement system for implementation of Skill Development Initiative Scheme (SDIS) based on Modular Employable Skills (MES) under the respondent no. 5. The Government of India allotted funds to the State Government for implementation of Skill Development in Initiative Scheme based on MES and in the State of Assam, the said scheme is being implemented by the respondent no. 5. The petitioner participated in the process Page No.# 3/4 by submitting its proposal. The respondent no. 5 by an order dated 02.02.2015 gave approval to the petitioner for conducting training in four nos. of courses. After providing training facilities in batches during the years, 2015 and 2016 following the norms, the petitioner submitted a bill amounting to Rs. 38,33,500/- on 23.09.2016. Out of the said amount, only an amount of Rs. 6,72,672/- has been paid by the respondent authorities on 13.05.2020. An amount of Rs. 31,60,828/- has still remained to be paid and despite repeated approaches by the petitioner the same has not been paid till date.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to an order dated 26.02.2018 passed in another writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 6715/2017, analogous in nature, has prayed for a similarly order.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents having gone through the order dated 26.02.2018 (supra), annexed to the writ petition as Annexure- 14, have submitted that the present writ petition can also be disposed of with a similar direction, like in the order dated 26.02.2018 (supra).
6. Having gone through the order dated 26.02.2018 and the facts averred in this writ petition, it is found that the case of the present petitioner is also of similar nature, like the petitioner in the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 6715/2017.
7. In the case in hand, the petitioner claims that out of the total bill amount of Rs. 38,33,500/-, an amount of Rs. 6,72,672/- has been paid and an amount of Rs. Rs. 31,60,828/- has remained to be paid.
8. Thus, the issue relates to non-payment of outstanding dues of the petitioner in respect of which part payment has been made by the respondent authorities.
Page No.# 4/4
9. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to verify the claims of the petitioner and if the same is found to be genuine, necessary steps are to be taken for release of any balance payment, found due to the petitioner. The entire exercise may be carried out and completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant