WP(C)/6790/2014 of PACIFIC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY and MANAGEMENT Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS on 7 September 2026

ORDER

Date : 08.09.2026 Heard Mr. R.A. Choudhruy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Bakolial, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. K.K. Dey, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4.

2. The grievance raised in the present petition is regarding non-payment of the remaining amount, out of Rs.25 lac, which was a part of the payment to be made by the Respondent No.4 to the petitioner pursuant to the MOU entered into between the Respondent No. 4 and the petitioner for imparting skill development training in computer training and garment making. The relevant portion of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid MOU dated 24.12.2013 between the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner is quoted below for ease of reference:- “The payment norms would be as per the Matrix enclosed as follows: 1st installment After commencement of training of the concerned Training Institute shall be paid 20% of the contract value 2nd installment On successful completion of 2/3rd of the training duration 30% of the contract value 3rd installment On successful completion of respective batches of training, submission of all 30% of the contract value relevant reports and issue of certification in support of the same, from the designated officer of the concerned ULB/DUDA 4th installment After 70% -placement of the trainees in their respective trade and completion of 3 months of engagement. Submission of all relevant reports. and issue of certification in support of the same, from the designated officer of the concerned ULB/DUDA/SUDA along with self certified undertaking or salary certificate from the concerned beneficiary. 20% of the contract value

As the 50% of total fund amounting to Rs. 24.00 Lac out of Rs. 48.00 Lac has already been received from the Director, Municipal Administration, Assam vide letter No. DMA(A)163/2013/120 dated, 12-09-2013 & No. DMA(A)163/2013/231 dated, 07-10- 2013 in 2 (Two) installments respectively, payment terms as referred to above will be made by two installments (1st & 2nd) qut of the 50% existing total fund received, & be paid to the Second Party and the rest two installments (3rd & 4th) will be paid as and when fund received from the Director, Municipal Administration, Assam at a time after fulfillment of terms & conditions as referred to above. Further, if under any circumstances, the balance amount of Rs. 24.00 Lac is not released by the Director, Municipal Administration, Assam this Board, the Second party cannot claim for further payment of the said balance amount of Rs. 24.00 Lac to the First party and thus the training conducted by the Second party shall be treated as free of cost.”

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had been paid a total amount of Rs.20,05,280/- as per the first clause of the payment terms and that the rest of the amount remains unpaid.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the claim under the second clause for the rest of the amount is not being agitated in the present writ petition for the time being. The petitioner would crave liberty to agitate the said claim before the appropriate forum.

5. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by respondent No. 4, wherein at paragraph 10 the following has been stated:- “That the statement made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition is misconceived inasmuch as the answering respondent No 4 made further payment of Rs 5 lakhs vide cheque No 575771 dated 17.7.2014 which has been suppressed by the writ petitioner. The answering respondent No.4 made all payment to the writ petitioner immediately on receipt of the amount as transferred by the Urban Development Department, Govt Of Assam. The respondent No 4 further beg to state that no question of release of 1st,2nd 3rd and 4th installments as the Government used to forward funds in lump sum from time to time. However the respondent No.4 Municipal Board paid total amount of Rs 25 lakhs to the writ petitioner for carrying out the project. Thereafter, no such fund has been released by the Central Government in connection with the impugned Scheme and as such the respondant No.4 is not in a position to make further payment to the writ petitioner.”

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 has submitted that it was by mistake that the statement regarding payment of Rs.25 lakhs to the petitioner had been made and, in fact, the amount as projected by the petitioner in the writ petition has been paid.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the remaining amount is admitted and not disputed by the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No. 4, the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the judgment of this Court in Tamsher Ali Vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2008 4 GLT 1.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has submitted that the scheme under which the petitioner was required to impart training is no longer in force. Further, he submits that at paragraph 11 of the affidavit-in-opposition, it has been stated that the petitioner did not complete the training programme, as a result of which, the beneficiary students could not place themselves in self-employment. He, therefore, submits that there has been violation of the terms of the MOU.

9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has also referred to the arbitration clause for resolving the disputes between the parties. He submits that the petitioner would be at liberty to refer the matter to arbitration instead of pursuing the present petition.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials on record.

11. Reference to the arbitration clause, in my considered opinion, could not apply to the present facts and circumstances when there is no dispute being raised by respondent No. 4 regarding the requirement to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.24 lakhs out of the Rs.48 lakhs, which had already been received from the Director, Municipal Administration.

12. It is not the case of the respondent authorities that the petitioner would otherwise not be entitled to the payment of the remaining amount of Rs.3,94,710/-.

13. Since there is already an assertion made in the affidavit-in-opposition that the respondents had made payments to the petitioner in consideration of the work executed by them and the entitlement of the petitioner to the remaining sum is not being disputed by respondent No. 4, the present petition is disposed of by directing respondent No. 4 to make such verification as is necessary regarding the payments already made to the petitioner and to pay the remaining amount of Rs.3,94,710/- to the petitioner within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

14. The petitioner had initially prayed for payment of the remaining amount of Rs.24 lakhs also which was stated in the MOU to be payable only in case the said amount is released by the Director of Municipal Administration.

15. If the Director of Municipal Administration has released the said amount to respondent No. 4, the petitioner would have the liberty to approach the appropriate forum to make any claim. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant