High Court · 2009

Heard Mr SC Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms R. Bora, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC for short). By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of I ndia, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing the impugned l etters dated 6.7.2009 and 11.7.2009 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has b een asked to remove his existing store house situated near 310 Unit and 311 Unit within the Defence (MES) area Missamari. The petitioner’s further prayer is for a direction to the respondents, more part icularly, respondent nos.4&5 not to force the petitioner to remove his existing store house as per impugned letters mentioned hereinabove. Considering the grievance raised in this petition, as well as the written instru ction received by Ms.Bora, learned Central Government Counsel and also as agreed to by the learned counsel appearing for the parties this writ petition is dispo sed of at the motion stage itself. The petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that, the petitioner’s firm initially was registered supplier under Commander Works Engineer, Tezpur, and was carrying wo rks under Station Headquarter, Missamari. Subsequently, the petitioner carried o n construction works under Military Engineering Service (M.E.S. for short) Stat ion Headquarter, Missamari, regarding categories (a), (c), (d) and (g)(v) vide w ork order dated 17.5.2007. Thereafter, he was reclassified as ’E’ Class contrac tor vide order dated 14.11.1998. He was also allotted categories of works (h) vi de letter dated 14.11.2001. For carrying out various works the petitioner was al lowed to construct at his own cost a shed/store house near 310 unit by the autho rity like all other contractors and he has constructed the aforesaid storehouse long back whose present estimated cost is about Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs ) only. The construction of the aforesaid store house was necessitated for stori ng of various construction materials, valuable machineries so as to prevent them from theft, damages etc. The petitioner also has his office within the shed and he resides there along with two caretaker who looks after the materials etc alo ngwith the proprietor of the firm. The petitioner also has been provided with e lectricity connection and is also paying rent of the premises , which are adju sted/ deducted from the bill amount per work basis. He has been allotted constru ction work for constructing 5(five) guard rest rooms with toilet and guard post at Army AVN SQN under Garrison Engineer, Missamari. He was also allotted repair and maintenance works within the adjacent areas of store house. When the petiti oner was doing his allotted construction work without any hindrance, suddenly t he Administrative Commandant Station H.Q., Missamari vide letter dated 6.7.2009 directed the Garrison Engineer, Missamari to allocate alternate location to the petitioner by 12.7.2009 for execution of MES works and also to ensure that the p etitioner vacate the present location by 20.7.2009 failing which he was requeste d to forward explanation as to why the premises not vacated after due date. Acco rdingly, the Garrison Engineer, Missamari vide letter dated 11.7.2009 requested the petitioner to remove earlier constructed store house near 310 unit and 311 unit on the alleged plea that he has not removed the same even after completion of work and further directed to make a temporary store nearby work site if feel required without specifying which worksite and also not allotting the alternat e location till date. He has submitted a representation before the Administrat ive Commandant on 17.7.2009 with a copy to Garrison Engineer, Missamari and Comm ander Engineer (Works) Tezpur, praying for reconsideration of the matter stating therein about the cost incurred by him in constructing the existing store house , and also that he has been discriminated, inasmuch as, no such order of removab le existing store houses of other contractor within the said area have been issu ed by the authority. But the representation so filed has not been disposed of t ill date. Hence, this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. As directed by this court vide order dated 22.7.2009, Ms Bora has placed before this Court a written instruction received from the respondent authority. I have perused the same. On perusal of the same, it would reveal that vide communicatio n dated 11.7.2009 , the Executive Engineer Garrison Engineer had requested the petitioner to remove the existing Store earlier constructed by the petitioner i mmediately on the ground that the same has not been removed even after completi on of the work allotted to the petitioner. On the other hand vide communicatio n dated 18.7.2009 the petitioner has been informed that the Station Headquarter, Missamari has approved a site as shown to the petitioner nearby labour camp of M/S Hindustan Traders and M/S G.K.Traders as well as nearby 6 DSC Guard Posts, opposite to runway for construction of temporary shed to be used by the petition er for storing of construction materials , machineries etc. Ms Bora has further submitted that due to the location of temporary building an d godown of MES contractor on defence land at a very close vicinity of Fuel Oi l Lubricants( FOL for short) Depot, Missamari, there is a lot of civil movement as well as movement of stores from contractors godown which is posing security threat in terms of fire as well as other aspects of FOL Depot and therefore, it was decided by the authority to direct/request the contractors to remove their godowns to some other places/locations. In view of the submissions so made by the learned Central Government Counsel, Mr Biswas appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be grante d some time to remove the godown which was constructed by spending Rs. 4,00,000/ - . I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the mat erials available on record as well as written instruction received by the learne d Central Government Counsel . Upon perusal of the materials on record includin g the written instruction, as well as by taking the aforesaid submissions into c onsideration, I am of the opinion that petitioner would shift its storehouse as directed by the authority at the earliest. The petitioner is therefore directed to remove his godown/storehouse to the plac e/site as shown to him by the respondent authority within a period of four (4) w eeks from today. Considering the security threat, this Court hopes and trust tha t the petitioner shall do the needful within the aforesaid time frame with the h elp of respondent authority. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.