Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010254122024
2024:GAU-AS:11851
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6344/2024
FLEXITUFF DIRD JV
THROUGH AUTHORISED REP. MR. RAMAN GOSWAMI, 3RD FLOOR, H.NO-
5, TARINI BUILDING, LACHIT NAGAR CHARIALI, G.S ROAD, GUWAHATI,
ASSAM, PIN-781007
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
ASSAM WATER CENTRE
5TH FLOOR
BASISTHA CHARIALI
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781029
THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
ASSAM WATER CENTRE
5TH FLOOR
BASISTHA CHARIALI
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781029
Page No.# 2/3
4:THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER
EAP WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
ASSAM WATER CENTRE
5TH FLOOR
BASISTHA CHARIALI
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-78102
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D S SINGH, MR. D DAS SR. ADV,MR A I TALUKDAR,MS. P
SULTANA,MR. A K SINGH
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, WATER RESOURCE
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 29-11-2024
Heard Mr. D Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner. He prays that he may be allowed to
withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to file the same before the
appropriate forum.
Ms. K Deka, learned counsel appears for the Water Resource Department
while Ms. U Das, learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 1.
The matter pertains to the termination of the petitioner’s contract, on the
ground that the Bank Guarantees submitted by the petitioner are fake Bank
Guarantees, which have apparently been reflected in the letter dated
01.08.2024 issued by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department,
Government of Assam. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the basis for the
Page No.# 3/3
respondents coming to a finding that the Bank Guarantees are fake have not
been given to the petitioner. As such, the principles of natural justice has been
violated.
On the other hand, the respondents’ case is that the Bank has issued a
letter clarifying that the Bank Guarantees submitted by the petitioner are fake
and that the Bank did not issue the Bank Guarantees.
The prayer of the petitioner’s counsel is allowed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as
prayed for.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant