Decided on May 30,2019

Murphy Thumrah Contractor Appellant


M.V MURALIDARAN,J. - (1.) Heard Mr.MDevananda, learned counsel for the petitioner and heard also Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Deputy AG for the respondents.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order dated 11.07.2016 passed by the second respondent and to direct the respondents to conduct verification of the works completed by the petitioner in view of the order dated 30.03.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 242 of 2016 by affording the petitioner an opportunity and also direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.11,77,866/-.
(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent issued Work Orders dated 08.08.2008 to the petitioner for (i) construction of P/dam at Mare paddy field at KhamasomPhyngrel for Rs. 6,74,780/- and (ii) construction of P/W a/c Pharang River at SihaiKahaophung for Rs. 5,03,086/- of Minor Irrigation Department, Manipur after according administrative approval of the Government of Manipur. The petitioner had executed the work and after completion of the work, bills were not settled by the respondent authorities though the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No.IV, Minor Irrigation Department prepared the final payment of bill amount of Rs.11,77,866/- and forwarded the liability statement/list of outstanding bills to the second respondent/Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department. Since the second respondent failed to settle the undisputed amounts, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 242 of 2016 praying inter alia for a direction to the respondents to pay the total sum of Rs.11,77,866/-. By an order dated 30.03.2016, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the second respondent or his authorised Executive Engineer to verify the undisputed outstanding bill amounts within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and after verification of the undisputed bill amounts payable to the petitioner, the same shall be released in favour of the petitioner in accordance with seniority in completion of work. However, after a lapse of four months from the date of passing order in W.P.(C) No. 242 of 2016, the second respondent passed the impugned order stating that the works were started only after the expiry of schedule dates of completion of the works and no application for extension of time was received from the petitioner and thus the Work Orders lapsed automatically. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.