Muslim Ali vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010010272025

2026:GAU-AS:16047
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/281/2025
MUSLIM ALI
S/O LATE MAKBUL ALI
R/O SUNDARBARI
P.S. JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI-781014
DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO
THE GOVT.OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS), DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-781006.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF
ASSAM
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS) DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (BORDER ROADS)
ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-781003.
4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BARPETA
MANDIA AND CHENGA TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION
BARPETA
ASSAM

Page No.# 2/7
PIN-781301.
(ERSTWHILE BARPETA- BAGHBAR-CHENGA TERRITORIAL ROAD
DIVISION
BARPETA)
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. Das, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. P. Sarma, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Gogoi, Addl. AG, Assam
: Mr. M. Bhuyan, Advocate

· Date on which Judgment was reserved : NA
· Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 02.11.2026
· Whether the pronouncement is of
the Operative Part of the Judgment : Yes

· Whether the full Judgment has been
Pronounced : NA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.
Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General who is
also the Standing counsel of the PWD appears on behalf of the
Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Letter
of Termination dated 17.12.2024 whereby the contract for
construction and maintenance of rural roads under Pradhan Mantri

Page No.# 3/7
Gram Sadak Yojana 2018-19, Batch-I in Barpeta District having
Package No. AS-01-211 was terminated.
3. The record reveals that initially the Petitioner was awarded a
contract for construction of the road from L-138 Pachim
Chaysimana to Baladmari via Rahmania MEM including CD works
and routine maintenance for 5 years, Package No. AS-01-211, for
the contract price of Rs.17,24,37,355/- (Construction
Rs.16,21,65,355/- + for Maintenance Rs.1,02,72,000/-) and the
Letter of Acceptance was issued on 08.03.2019.
4. Subsequent thereto, a contract agreement was entered into
on 13.06.2019 wherein the period of completion was mentioned as
12 months. The Petitioner had certain difficulties to carry out the
work on account of access not being provided. Further to that, on
31.08.2022, the contract work was modified. As the contract could
not be completed, the Respondents in the PWD terminated the
contract vide an order dated 17.12.2024, assigning the reason that
the Petitioner had committed fundamental breach of contract. The
termination of the contract was made at the risk and cost of the
Petitioner. The said Letter of Termination dated 17.12.2024 is
challenged in the present proceedings by filing the present writ
petition on 18.01.2025.
5. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order

Page No.# 4/7
dated 24.01.2025 issued notice with an observation that the prayer
for interim order would be considered on the next date.
Subsequent thereto, on 17.03.2025, there was a direction passed
that no coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioner.
6. The records further reveal that on 17.09.2025 when the
matter was listed before this Court, the interim order was modified
and directions were issued that the Respondent Authorities shall
not impose any risk and cost upon the Petitioner till the finalization
of the present dispute. The interim order thereupon has been
extended from time to time.
7. It is also relevant to take note of that, in the meantime, one
M/S R.B. Associate was granted the remaining work at a total
consideration of Rs.6,82,85,250/- and this is evident from the
notice to proceed with the work dated 21.03.2025 issued by the
Chief Engineer, PWD, (Border Roads).
8. It is also seen from the progress report as on 16.06.2026 that
the road work was supposed to be completed by the end of July,
2026 and the bridge work is expected to be completed by
November, 2026.
9. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take note of
the reliefs which were sought for by the Petitioner.

Page No.# 5/7
10. The Petitioner has sought for a direction for setting aside and
quashing the Letter of Termination dated 17.12.2024 and further a
direction upon the Respondent Authorities to allow the Petitioner to
complete the remaining work.
11. Taking into account the notice to proceed with the work had
already been issued in favour of M/S R.B. Associate as well as the
progress report dated 16.06.2026 shows that the road work would
be completed by July, 2026 and the bridge work would be
completed by November, 2026, the relief sought for by the
Petitioner to be granted an opportunity to carry out the balance
work cannot be granted. The only relief which is required to be
considered is as to whether this Court in exercise of the powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution, should interfere with the
Letter of Termination dated 17.12.2024.
12. From the materials on record, it transpires that the contract
initially was awarded on 13.06.2019 and the period of completion
was 12 months. Admittedly, the contract work could not be
completed within the period. The Petitioner alleges that on account
of non-performance of reciprocal obligation by the Respondents
which the Respondents deny and for reason beyond the control,
the Petitioner could not complete the work. The records further
reveal that on 31.08.2022, a modified contract agreement was

Page No.# 6/7
entered into whereby certain works which were to be carried out
were modified.
13. The question arises amidst the factual scenario as to whether
this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution should entertain
the present dispute inasmuch as, on one hand, the Petitioner
alleges that on account of the non-performance of the reciprocal
obligations by the Respondents coupled with reasons beyond the
control, the Petitioner could not carry out the work within the
period stipulated and on the other hand, the Respondents
contended that they have carried out their reciprocal obligations
including payment of all dues to the Petitioner and in spite of that,
the Petitioner failed to complete the work, which was a
fundamental breach to the terms of the agreement.
14. These allegations and counter allegations are essential
questions of facts which this Court, under Article 226 of the
Constitution cannot entertain inasmuch as, the same have been
proved by oral and documentary evidence. The forum wherein
such dispute can be resolved is a forum where such evidence can
be led.
15. Considering the above, this Court is therefore not inclined to
entertain the instant writ petition insofar as the challenge to the
Letter of Termination dated 17.12.2024 is concerned.

Page No.# 7/7
16. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with
the following observations and directions:
(i) This Court in view of the reasons assigned in the body of the
judgment is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition for
which the writ petition stands dismissed.
(ii) The dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not prejudice
the Petitioner to challenge the Letter of Termination dated
17.12.2024, if so advised and the period during which the present
proceedings have been pending, i.e. with effect from 18.01.2025
till date, be excluded while computing the period of limitation.
(iii) This Court further observes that if the Petitioner initiates any
proceedings in future challenging the Letter of Termination dated
17.12.2024, the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not
prejudice the Petitioner's rights in such proceedings.
(iv) Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

Digitally signed by
Bijoy Saha
Date: 2026.11.04
10:31:48 +05'30'
JUDGE
Bijoy Saha
Comparing Assistant