LAWS(GAU)-2023-5-161

BAPOJITH LANGTHASA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On May 16, 2023
Bapojith Langthasa Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant intra-Court writ appeal is directed against the judgment/final order dtd. 17/2/2023 passed by the learned Single Bench whereby, WP(C) No.4884/2020 preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner for questioning the legality and validity of the letter dtd. 15/9/2020 by which the contract issued to the petitioner/appellant for construction of a Media Centre at Haflong in the district of Dima Hasao was terminated.

(2.) Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel representing the appellant has advanced following arguments for questioning the legality and validity of the decision terminating the contract granted to the appellant. (i) That no notice of termination was given to the appellant before terminating contract. (ii) That the contract was terminated by the Executive Engineer and not the Additional Chief Engineer and thus, the impugned action has been perpetrated by an authority not having the jurisdiction to do so. Mr. Choudhury urged that under the contract, the employer is defined as the Additional Chief Engineer and hence, the Executive Engineer was not competent to take the decision of terminating the contract. On these grounds, Mr. Choudhury implored the Court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct restoration of the construction contract granted to the appellant.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. R.M. Das, learned standing counsel for the NCHAC vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. He urged that the writ petition itself was not maintainable because Clauses 24 and 25 of the contract lays down a procedure for resolution of disputes. He drew the Court's attention to Clauses 24 and 25 of the contract which are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference and urged that even the issue of the decision taken by the Engineer being beyond the authority or that the same was wrongly taken can be subjected to challenge before the Dispute Review Board prescribed under Clause 25 of the contract.