Economic Development Organisation vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors

Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010177052020

2026:GAU-AS:15576
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5347/2020
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT BHALUKDHARA, TAMULI ROAD (WARD
NO.8), P.O. AND P.S. DHEKIAJULI, DIST. SONITPUR, PIN-784110, ASSAM
AND REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TEXTILE, UDYOG BHAWAN, DR.
MAULANA AZAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110011.
2:THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (HANDICRAFT)
GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
WEST BLOCK NO.-VII
SECTOR-1
R.K. PURAM
NEW DELHI-110066.
3:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (DESIGN)
OFFICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (HANDICRAFT)
GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
WEST BLOCK NO.-VII
SECTOR-1
R.K. PURAM
NEW DELHI-110066.
4:THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR (DESIGN)

Page No.# 2/14
OFFICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (HANDICRAFT)
GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
WEST BLOCK NO.-VII
SECTOR-1
R.K. PURAM
NEW DELHI-110066.
5:THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER
CENTRAL PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (HANDICRAFT)
GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
WEST BLOCK NO.-VII
SECTOR-1
R.K. PURAM
NEW DELHI-110066.
6:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER)
OFFICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (HANDICRAFT)
NERO
GUWAHATI.
7:THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR (H)
OFFICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (HANDICRAFT)
MARKETING AND SERVICE EXTENSION CENTRE
MINISTRY OF TEXTILE
GOVT. OF INDIA
JORHAT-785001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A D CHOUDHURY,
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR. P S BHATTACHARYYA

:::BEFORE:::

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
For the petitioner : Mr. A.D. Choudhury, Advocate .

Page No.# 3/14
For the Respondents : Advocate
Mr. P.S. Bhattacharyya,

Date on which Judgment is reserved : 17.07.2026
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 12.10.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
operative part of the Judgment? : NA
Whether the full Judgment has been
pronounced? : Yes
Judgment & Order (CAV)
Heard Mr. A. D. Choudhury, learned counsel, appearing for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Bhattacharyya , learned C.G.C., appearing
for the Respondents.
2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present writ petition, has
prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for releasing an
amount of Rs.4,58,333/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Three
Hundred Thirty Three), as the reimbursement claim of the Petitioner
Society for arranging and conducting a “Integrated Design and Technical
Development Project in Embroidery, & Artistic Textiles, Craft”, at Singri,
Dhekiajuli, Sonitpur, Assam, during the year 2010-11, along with interest at
appropriate rate.

Page No.# 4/14
3. The Petitioner Society was entrusted to arrange and conduct one
“Integrated Design and Technical Development Project in Embroidery, &
Artistic Textiles, Craft”, at Singri, Dhekiajuli, Sonitpur, Assam, during the
year 2010-11. The duration of the said project was for a period of 06 (six)
months and the project was to be implemented in collaboration with the
Regional Design and Technical Development Centre, Guwahati. The total
amount sanctioned for the project, vide an order dated 05-01-2011, was
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs), and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs), was released to the Society as an advance. The
Petitioner Society accepted the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees
Five Lakhs) and proceeded to implement the project.
3.1. It is projected that the Petitioner Society, on completion of the
project, had submitted its accounts duly audited by a Chartered Accountant
by complying with the financial codal provisions and had claimed
reimbursement of the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupess Five
Lakhs).
3.2 It is further projected that the present Secretary of the Society
was not the Secretary when the project was so sanctioned to it and he was
an empanelled designer in the Office of the Development Commissioner,
(Handicrafts), Government Of India, Ministry Of Textile. However, the
Committee of the Society resigning on 08-09-2011, and the project being

Page No.# 5/14
required to be completed by 30-09-2011, the Society not being in a
position to select a new Designer, the present Secretary acted both as the
Secretary of the Society and a Designer for the project.
3.3. It is projected that although in terms of the order dated 05-
01-2011, the Designer was to be engaged from the empanelled list of
designers of the Office of the Development Commissioner, (Handicrafts),
Government Of India, considering the necessity of the conclusion of the
project within the period, for which it was so sanctioned, the present
Secretary of the Society had also acted as the Designer of the project,
inasmuch as, he was qualified for the same. It is further projected by the
petitioner that the Assistant Director, Office of the Development
Commissioner (Handicrafts), Marketing & Service Extension Centre, Jorhat,
vide a communication dated 18-01-2013, had required the Regional
Director, NER, Office of the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts),
Guwahati, to deduct the designer fee for a month. The project being
completed and the accounts being submitted in the matter by the Petitioner
Society, the Office of the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts),
Government Of India, proceeded to sanction an amount of Rs. 2,03,660/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty) to the Society vide
a communication dated 28-02-2013 as the balance reimbursement for the
project. The petitioner thereafter, took up the matter for being authorized

Page No.# 6/14
the balance of the project cost i.e. Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupess Five Lakhs), after
deducting fee for the designer for a month. The same having not been
authorized, the petitioner has instituted the present petition.
4. Mr. A. D. Choudhury, learned counsel, appearing for the
petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that
the project was completed by the Petitioner Society in accordance with the
terms and conditions as set out while sanctioning the said project to the
Petitioner Society. He submits that no objection was taken up by the
respondent authorities with regard to the manner in which the project was
being implemented by the Petitioner Soceity. However, after submission of
the duly audited accounts by the Petitioner Society, the respondent
authorities had raised untenable claims and deducted amounts from the
balance project cost, due to the Petitioner Society, in terms of the order
dated 05-01-2011. He submits that the designer fee was deducted for the
whole period of the project although the present Secretary had functioned
as the Designer of the project only for a period of less than 01 (one) month
and the respondent authorities had already decided to deduct the Designer
fee from the cost of the project only for a month.
4.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
projections made by the respondent authorities that there was high pricing
of the prototypes, is clearly not permissible, inasmuch as, the cost of the

Page No.# 7/14
prototype was set out in the order dated 05-01-2011 to be Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakh), while the actual cost incurred by the Petitioner Society
for the same was Rs.2,05,050/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Five Thousand Fifty).
Accordingly, he submits that the expenditure incurred by the Petitioner
Society for the prototypes above the sanctioned amount of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs only), would not be required to be reimbursed by the
respondent authorities. However, the cost of the prototype as fixed in the
order dated 05-01-2011, would be required to be authorized to them.
5. Per contra, Mr. P.S. Bhattacharyya , learned C.G.C., appearing
for the Respondents, has submitted that the Petitioner Society having
violated the condition set out in the order dated 05-01-2011, for execution
of the project sanctioned to it, more particularly the condition that the
designer shall be engaged from the empanelled list of Designers of the
Office of the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), Government Of
India, the respondent authorities had proceeded to deduct the designer fee
amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand) for the
entire project period along with the marked up amount for wastage of raw
materials and also the cost of the prototype. He further submits that an
amount of Rs.2,96,340/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Three
Hundred Forty) was worked out to be deducted from the balance amount
of the project cost of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs). Accordingly, he

Page No.# 8/14
submits that the amount of Rs.2,03,660/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Three
Thousand Six Hundred Sixty) was authorized for payment to the Petitioner
Society vide a communication dated 20-08-2013. He submits that the claim
of the petitioner for being reimbursed for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs) and/or Rs.4,58,333/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Eight
Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Three), after deducting the cost of
designer's fee for a period of 01 (one) month, would not mandate a
consideration by the Court, inasmuch as, the same is disputed by the
respondent authorities.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the materials available on record.
7. The petitioner society was awarded a project vide
communication dated 05-01-2011 and the total cost of the project was
fixed at Rs.10,0000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs). An amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs) was released to the Petitioner Society, as advance
which was duly received by the Petitioner Society. The Petitioner Society,
thereafter, completed the project and submitted its accounts in the matter
along with a claim for being paid the remaining amount of the balance cost
of the project i.e., Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs). On a processing
made, the respondent authorities having noticed that the present Secretary
of the society had also functioned as the Designer of the Society, it was

Page No.# 9/14
concluded that the same was impermissible in accordance with the terms
and conditions set out in the order dated 05-01-2011, for award of the
project, wherein, it has been specified that the designer should be one who
is engaged from the empanelled list of Designers of the Office of the
Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), Government of India.
8. This Court notices that a recommendation was made by the
Assistant Director, Office of the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts),
Marketing and Service Extension Centre, Jorhat, vide a communication
dated 18-01-2013, to deduct the designer fee for a month. However, it is
seen that the respondent authorities had deducted an amount of Rs.
2,50,000 (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand) as Designer fee (including
(TA/DA) for the entire project period. Further, an amount of Rs.46,340/-
(Rupees Forty Six Three Hundred Forty) was decided to be deducted on the
ground that the price fixed for each of the prototypes was found to be on
the higher side considering the products and the cost of the raw material.
Accordingly, an amount of Rs.2,96,340/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Six
Thousand Three Hundred Forty) was decided to be withheld from the
balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) of the project cost
which was required to be paid to the Petitioner Society on completion of
the project, in question.
9. This Court further notices that an amount of Rs.2,03660/-

Page No.# 10/14
(Rupees Two Lakhs Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty) was worked out as
the balance amount to be paid to the Petitioner Society for the project, in
question, in addition to the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs)
paid to it earlier as an advance. The said amount was sanctioned vide a
communication dated 28.02.2013. However, the said amount was not
released to the Petitioner Society. This Court on noticing the said position
and the fact that an amount of Rs. 2,03,660/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Three
Thousand Six Hundred Sixty), was admitted to be receivable by the
Petitioner Society against the cost of the project, in question, proceeded
vide order dated 27.06.2024, passed in the present writ petition, to direct
the respondent authorities to release to the Petitioner Society the said
amount of Rs. 2,03,660/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Three Thousand Six Hundred
Sixty), for which a pre-receipt was already submitted by the Petitioner
Society. However, this Court, vide the said order dated 27.06.2024, had not
specified as to the date from which the interest applied at the rate of 9%
per annum was to be so computed.
10. Accordingly, the Petitioner Society had filed an Interlocutory
Application being I.A.(C).No.2617/2024, praying for specification of the
date from which the said interest amount would accrue to the petitioner
with regard to the admitted amount of Rs. 2,03,660/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty). This Court, accordingly, vide order

Page No.# 11/14
dated 02.09.2024, disposed of the said Interlocutory Application being I.A.
(C).No.2617/2024, directing that the interest @ 9% on the amount of Rs.
2,03,660/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty), would
be payable to the Petitioner Society w.e.f., the date the said amount was
sanctioned for payment to the Petitioner Society i.e., w.e.f., 28.02.2013.
11. Being aggrieved, the respondents have filed a review petition
being Review Petition No.80/2025, against the orders dated 27.06.2024
passed in the present writ petition as well as the order dated 02.09.2024
passed in the Interlocutory Application being I.A.(C).No.2617/2024.
12. This Court on consideration of the matter proceeded vide order
dated 27.04.2026, to dismiss the said Review Petition affirming the order
dated 27.06.2024, passed in the present proceeding as well as the order
dated 02.09.2024 passed in I.A.(C).No.2617/2024.
13. From the materials coming on record, it is seen that the
amount of Rs. 2,03,660/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Three Thousand Six Hundred
Sixty), was released to the Petitioner Society only on 18.07.2024. However,
the interest accruing on account of the delay in authorizing the said
amount to the Petitioner Society has not been paid till date.
14. In view of the above position, this Court reiterates its order
dated 02.09.2024 passed in I.A.(C).No.2617/2024, directing for payment of
interest @ 9% per annum, on the said amount of Rs. 2,03,660/- (Rupees

Page No.# 12/14
Two Lakhs Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty), w.e.f., 28.02.2013, till the
date of release of the said amount, which would now be required to be
computed till 18.07.2024.
15. The petitioner in the present writ petition has claimed that out
of the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) receivable by
the petitioner society as the project cost, after deducting an amount of Rs.
41,667/- (Rupees Forty One Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Seven) as
designer fee for a period of 01 (one) month, in view of the fact that the
Secretary of the Society had also functioned during the said period as the
Designer of the Society, the respondent authorities be directed to release to
the Petitioner Society the balance amount of Rs.4,58,333/- (Rupees Four
Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Three).
16. This Court finds that the amount claimed by the petitioner
above Rs.2,03,660/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Three Thousand Six Hundred
Sixty), as already released to the Petitioner Society, as the balance of the
cost of the project, on 18.07.2024, is disputed. The respondent authorities
in the affidavit filed in the matter have not admitted to any amount over
and above Rs. 2,03,660/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Three Thousand Six Hundred
Sixty), as the due reimbursement receivable by the Petitioner Society
against the project, in question, over and above Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs) already released to it. The claim of the petitioner for being

Page No.# 13/14
authorized an amount over and above Rs.2,03,660/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty), against the balance of the project cost
of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) not being admitted to by the
respondent authorities, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would
not be in a position to issue any direction to the respondent authorities for
release of any further amount over and above the admitted amount of
Rs.2,03,660/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty).
17. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner in the present writ
petition for being reimbursed with the balance of the project cost, over and
above Rs.2,03,660/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Three Thousand Six Hundred
Sixty), would stand rejected. However, the petitioner is at liberty to
approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction for release of the said
amount along with due interest.
18. In the event of the Petitioner Society instituting proceedings for
realization of the balance amount of Rs.2,96,340/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
Ninety Six Thousand Three Hundred Forty) with due interest, before the
competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction, a question of delay in instituting such
proceedings arises, the Court while considering the issue of delay, shall
reckon the fact that the Petitioner Society was bonafidely pursuing its claim
in the present proceedings, since the year 2020, before this Court
19. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, the present writ

Page No.# 14/14
petition stands disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to
authorize to the petitioner, the interest component with regard to the
admitted amount of Rs.2,03,660/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Three Thousand Six
Hundred Sixty), for the period w.e.f., 28.02.2013 till 18.07.2024. The
interest component, if not released, be released within a period of 01 (one)
month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The other
claims made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would be
permissible to be raised by it before the competent Court of Civil
Jurisdiction, in terms of the liberty granted, hereinabove.
20. With the above observations and directions, the present
petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Ranu
Boro
Digitally signed by Ranu Boro DN: c=IN, o=Personal, postalCode=781005, l=Kamrup
Metro, st=Assam, street=HOUSE NO 25 JAPORIGOG, KRISHNANAGAR,GUWAHATI, Japorigog, Dispur Assam
India 781005 NEAR MASJID, title=0094, 2.5.4.20=c747c5c0d257d22064ef564859e1ebec92d7ed
cfa1fcc678cbde562c68c9e94f, serialNumber=e8ee80fb826c508f1dcf37332bc0b9e247
dba00f5758c2dde86f2e36159f37d6,
[email protected], cn=Ranu Boro Date: 2026.10.14 13:35:58 +05'30'