WP(C)/4103/2022 of POWER AND INSTRUMENTATION (GUJARAT) LIMITED Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS 2 on 26 April 2026

GAHC010117222022

2026:GAU-AS:5827

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4103/2022 POWER AND INSTRUMENTATION (GUJARAT) LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, SHRI JUGASISH BORKOTOKY, B-1104 SANKALP ICONIC, OPP VIKRAMPUR, ISCON TEMPLE CROSS ROAD, S.G. HIGHWAY, AHEMDABAD- 380058. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS 2 REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781006. 2:THE DISTRICT MISSION DIRECTOR JJM CUM EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PHE) PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TEZPUR DIVISION NO.1 TEZPUR. 3:ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TEZPUR DIVISION NO. 1 TEZPUR BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. K. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Gogoi, SC, PHE

· Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 27.04.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No

· Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. B. K. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner was issued 4 (four) work orders the details of which have been given at paragraph No.4 of the writ petition. The said details are reproduced herein under: “(i) The Respondent No.2 issued the Work Order no. EE/PHE/TEZ-1/TC-277/2021- 22/2399 dated 03.11.2021 for implementation of various pipe water supply scheme in New Phulbari under JJM under Tezpur Division No.1, Tezpur for the year 2021-22. The approx value of the work is Rs.2,00,13,501/-.

(ii) The Respondent No.2 issued the Work Order no. EE/PHE/TEZ-1/TC-277/2021- 22/2400 dated 03.11.2021 for implementation of various pipe water supply scheme in Ouhala Gaon PWSS under JJM under Tezpur Division No.1, Tezpur for the year 2021-22. The approx value of the work is Rs.81,16,700/-.

(iii) The Respondent No.2 issued the Work Order no. EE/PHE/TEZ-1/TC-277/2021-

22/2401 dated 03.11.2021 for implementation of various pipe water supply scheme in New Namgaon T.E. PWSS under JJM under Tezpur Division No.1, Tezpur for the year 2021-22. The approx value of the work is Rs.94,62,950/-.

(iv) The Respondent No.2 issued the Work Order no. EE/PHE/TEZ- 1/TC-277/2021- 22/2409 dated 05.11.2021 for implementation of various pipe water supply scheme in Kachu Bil SVS and Rowmari Gaon PWSS under JJM under Tezpur Division No.1, Tezpur for the year 2021-22. The approx value of the work is Rs.1,42,41,450/- and Rs.1,04,77,550/- respectively,

totaling Rs.2,47,19,000/-.”

3. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that for no fault of the Petitioner, the Petitioner could not complete the works and the Petitioner requested the Respondent Authorities for allowing the Petitioner further time for completion of the works which was not accepted by the Respondent Authorities rather the Respondent Authorities terminated the four contracts and it is under such circumstances, the instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the action on the part of the Respondent Authorities to cancel the four contracts vide the communication dated 08.06.2022.

4. A perusal of the records reveal that vide an order dated 28.06.2022, this Court while issuing the notice kept the maintainability of the writ petition open. The Respondents however have not filed the affidavit-in-opposition in spite of due opportunities being provided.

5. This Court heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. The termination of the contracts in question by the Respondents vide the communication dated 08.06.2022 is on the ground that the Petitioner could not complete the works. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that, on account of heavy layers of boulders at the work site, the Petitioner could not carry out deep boring beyond 180 feet. In spite of that, the Petitioner sought for extension so that the Petitioner could carry out the works by using other machineries. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that such opportunities were not given to the Petitioner.

7. It is the opinion of this Court that the statements which have been made by the Petitioner are required to be proved by way of evidence and in that regard, it is the further opinion of this Court that such factual adjudication which has to be based upon evidence cannot be adjudicated in the instant proceedings. Apart from that, it is also noticed that the termination was given effect to on 08.06.2022 and almost 4 (four) years have passed by and under such circumstances, the reliefs which have been sought for in the instant proceedings cannot be granted.

8. This Court also duly takes note of that the Petitioner under the bonafide belief that this Court would entertain the dispute had filed the instant writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the termination of the contracts in question. It is the opinion of this Court that as the Petitioner has been diligently and bonafidely pursuing the instant proceedings, the Petitioner should be granted the benefit of the period during which the instant writ petition has been pending more so, in view of the fact that the Respondent Authorities having opportunity to file their affidavit-in-opposition have not filed so.

9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:

(i) This Court is not inclined to interfere with the termination of the 4 (four) contracts by the Respondent Authorities in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(ii) The contracts being determinable in nature, the Petitioners would be at liberty to seek damages on account of the breach of the contract and such aspect can only be adjudicated by a competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction taking into account that there is no arbitration clause.

(iii) This Court further observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition is on the ground that this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant dispute for the reasons disclosed above and under such circumstances, the dismissal of the writ petition shall not prejudice or preclude the Petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings before the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction.

(iv) This Court further taking into account the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 observes that the period from 13.06.2022 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing any suit or other proceedings claiming damages, if so advised.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant Bijoy Saha Digitally signed by Bijoy Saha Date: 2026.05.02 12:33:19 +05'30'