✦ Gauhati High Court

Judgment · High Court

KATAKEY

Judgment

Heard Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Goswami, learn ed standing counsel, Water Resources Department appearing for the respondents. The claim of the petitioner in the present petition is that though an amount of Rs. 6,97,269/- is still due and payable for the various works done by the petiti oner pursuant to the various work orders issued from time to time the same has n ot been paid. The issue involved in the present writ petition relating to non payment of contr actors’ bills has already been answered by a Full Bench of this Court in Tamsher Ali vs. State of Assam reported in [2008 (4) GLT 1]. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the afores aid judgment and order passed in Tamsher Ali (supra) this writ petition is dispo sed of directing the respondent authorities to register the name of the petition er in the register maintained by the department in respect of the amount due and payable to him and make the payment as soon as his turn comes. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Gauhati High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments