Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2025 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. Gauhati High Court/
  4. 2024/
  5. July

Kipa Kaney vs. the State of Ap and 4 Others

Decided on 31 July 2024• Citation: WP(C)/351/2023• Gauhati High Court
Download PDF

Read Judgment


        Page No.# 1/4                                                               
        GAHC040010222023                                                            
                             THE  GAUHATI    HIGH   COURT                           
          (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL  PRADESH)           
                                  (ITANAGAR BENCH)                                  
                                Case No. : WP(C)/351/2023                           
                 Kipa Kaney                                                         
                 S/o Late Kipa Rongma, resident of Ganga Market, P.O R.K Mission Hospital, P.S
                 Itanagar, District Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh, Mobile No. 8416003189
                 VERSUS                                                             
                 1:The State of AP and 4 Others represented by the Commissioner/Secretary, Public
                 Work Department (PWD), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, A.P Civil Secretariat
                 Itanagar.                                                          
                 2:The Chief Engineer, PWD (Central Zone A) Government of Arunachal Pradesh
                 Itanagar.                                                          
                 3:The Superintending Engineer, P.W.D Yachuli Circle Yazali District Lower Subansiri
                 Arunachal Pradesh.                                                 
                 4:The Executive Engineer, P.W.D Sangram Division P.O/P.S Sangram District Kurung
                 Kumey Arunachal Pradesh.                                           
                 5:The Commissioner/Secretary (Finance) Government of Arunachal Pradesh A.P
                 Civil Secretariat Itanagar                                         
        Advocate for the Petitioner : Gimi Tarak                                    
        Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP)                                       
                                       BEFORE                                       

        Page No.# 2/4                                                               
                         HONBLE  MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG                         
                                       ORDER                                        
        Date : 31-07-2024                                                           
                      Heard Mr. G. Tarak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also  
                 heard Mr. Y. Riram, learned Government advocate for the State      
                 respondents.                                                       
                  2.  It is seen that the State respondents have not filed their    
                  counter-affidavit till date and this Court vide its order dated   
                  26.06.2024 had noted that “since notice in this case was issued on
                  02.08.2023 and considering the claim of the petitioner pending    
                  before the respondent authorities for the period from 2008-2009 and
                  2009-2010, no further time shall be granted to the respondents to 
                  file their affidavit(s) beyond 26.07.2024.” This court finds it   
                  appropriate to hear the matter since the State respondents have not
                  filed their counter-affidavit till date.                          
                  3.  Mr. G. Tarak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
                  instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                  India, for the payment of the pending bills to the petitioner after
                  completion of the works, wherein the petitioner was awarded several
                  numbers  of work orders by  the Executive Engineer, Sangram       
                  Division, Public Works Department. And after the completion of his
                  works, he had submitted his bills against the works completed     

        Page No.# 3/4                                                               
                  amounting to Rs.1,12,05,799/-(Rupees One Crores Twelve Lakhs      
                  Five Thousand Seven Hundred  and Ninety Nine)only. Thereafter,    
                  several communications were made between the petitioner and the   
                  respondent authorities, for the payment of the bills.             
                  4.  Being  dissatisfied with their responses, the petitioner had  
                  lodged a complaint before the SIC (Vig.), whereby requesting to   
                  unearth the reasons why the outstanding pending bills are not     
                  released. The SIC(Vig.) submitted an enquiry report on 28.01.2022,
                  in favour of the petitioner affirming the claims being genuine and
                  after receiving the report, the Chief Engineer (Vigilance and     
                  Training), PWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, communicated     
                  the same to the Chief Engineer (CZ-A) PWD, Mowb-II, Itanagar, for 
                  necessary action. Thereafter, after several communications, the   
                  Executive Engineer, Sangram  Division, PWD,  Government  of       
                  Arunachal Pradesh addressed a letter dated 23.03.2022, to the     
                  Superintendent Engineer, Yachuli Civil Circle, PWD, Lower Subansiri
                  District, Arunachal Pradesh for requisition of additional fund/LOC to
                  clear the outstanding liabilities in respect of the petitioner.   
                  5.  The learned counsel submits that the above communications     
                  and said letters clearly reflects that the petitioner is entitled to be
                  paid the sum of Rs.1,12,05,799/-(Rupees One Crores Twelve Lakhs   
                  Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Nine)only, for his work for

        Page No.# 4/4                                                               
                  improving of road from Nyapin to Sango 0.00-15.00 Km under SPA    
                  during 2008.                                                      
                  6.  This Court having perused the nature of the communications    
                  made by the State respondents, finds that it is an admitted fact that
                  the State respondents are liable to pay to the petitioner, the sum of
                  Rs.1,12,05,799/-(Rupees One Crores Twelve Lakhs Five Thousand     
                  Seven Hundred and Ninety Nine)only, which are his pending bill.   
                  7.  In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of
                  with an order that the State respondents are to take steps for    
                  releasing the pending bills of the  petitioner, amounting to      
                  Rs.1,12,05,799/-(Rupees One Crores Twelve Lakhs Five Thousand     
                  Seven Hundred and  Ninety Nine)only, within a period of 4(four)   
                  months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, and
                  failure to pay the said amount within a stipulated time period, there
                  will be an interest imposed at the rate of 6% per annum, as prayed
                  for by the learned counsel for the petitioner.                    
                       Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.   
                                                          JUDGE                     
        Comparing Assistant