Gauhati High Court
M/S Goswami Engineering vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors on 11 April, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010080142023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2061/2023
M/S GOSWAMI ENGINEERING
HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT NH-37(A), BATAMARI,
P.O.- KALIABHOMORA,
TEZPUR, ASSAM- 784027,
DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI DIGANTA GOSWAMI,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
SON OF LATE BARADA KANTA GOSWAMI,
RESIDENT OF POLOFIELD BAMUNGAON, P.O. AND P.S.-TEZPUR- 784001,
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE DEFENCE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAY,
TRANSPORT BHAWAN-1,
PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI- 110001.
2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD. (NHIDCL)
MINISTRY OF ROAD
TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS
3RD FLOOR
PTI BUILDING
4-PARLIAMENT STREET
NEW DELHI- 110001.
3:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (P)
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED (NHIDCL)
Page No.# 2/4
REGIONAL OFFICE- GUWAHATI
MINISTRY OF ROAD
TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS
2ND FLOOR
AGNISHANTI BUSINESS PARK
OPP. AGP OFFICE
GNB ROAD
AMBARI
GUWAHATI- 781001
ASSAM.
4:THE GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECT)
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
PROJECT MONITORING UNIT- TEZPUR
SARAF TOWER
1ST FLOOR
OPPOSITE DON BOSCO SCHOOL
MAZGAON
TEZPUR- 784001
ASSAM.
5:STUP CONSTULTANTS PVT. LTD.
PS SRIJAN TECH PARK
8TH FLOOR
PLOT NO. DN-52
BLOCK-DN
ELECTRONIC COMPLEX
SALT LAKE CITY
SECTOR-V
KOLKATA- 700091.
6:M/S. RAMKY-TK(JV)
RAMK GRANDIOSE
19TH FLOOR
SY. NO. 136/2 AND 4
Page No.# 3/4
GACHIBOWLI
HYDERABAD- 500032
TELENGANA.
7:M/S. T K ENGINEERING CONSORTIUM (P) LTD.
MODEL VILLAGE- NAHARLAGUN
DISTRICT- PAPUM PARE
ARUNACHAL PRADESH- 791110
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BORAH
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NHIDC
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
11.04.2023 Heard Shri D. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner which is a partnership firm was engaged by the private respondent no. 6 who is the principal Contractor with the NHIDCL concerning a work of Four Laning of NH-52 from the end of Bishwanath Chariali by-pass to Gohpur in the district of Sonitpur.
As per Article 9.2 of the agreement, the Principal Contractor was required to cause shifting of any utility to a appropriate location or alignment if such utility or obstruction adversely affects the execution of the work in question and the actual cost for such shifting which was to be approved and communicated would be paid by the contractor and reimbursed by the authority to the Contractor. The petitioner claims that it was engaged by the Contractor for such utility work as a result of which they had raised bills. Though some part of the bill was paid at the initial stage, a major part amounting to Rs. 2,21,08,249/- (Rupees Two Crore Twenty One Lakhs Eight Thousand Two Hundred Forty Nine Only) is yet to be paid according to the petitioner.
The petitioner further submits that the work being foreclosed in the year 2021, Page No.# 4/4 there is a process to settle the accounts by the NHIDCL with the Principal Contractor - respondent no. 6 and if that happens, the scope of being paid for the works done by the petitioner would be minimized.
Issue notice, returnable by 4 (four) weeks.
Shri R.K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, NHIDCL accepts notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4.
Let extra copies of the writ petition be served upon him by tomorrow, i.e., 12.04.2023.
Steps for service of notice upon the respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7 be taken by registered post with A/D. Steps by tomorrow.
Heard the learned counsel on the interim prayer.
Shri Borah, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if in the meantime, the accounts are settled with the Contractor, the petitioner will hardly have any chance of getting their entitlements.
On the other hand, Shri Talukdar, the learned counsel submits that there is no contract between the NHIDCL and the petitioner and therefore, no direction may be issued at this stage.
After hearing the parties and on balancing the equities, it is directed that while settling the accounts with the Principal Contractor, the amount which has been claimed in this petition, namely Rs. 2,21,08,249/- (Rupees Two Crore Twenty One Lakhs Eight Thousand Two Hundred Forty Nine Only) should be secured and no such payments be made without the leave of this Court.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant