Gauhati High Court Ashok Kr Agarwalla vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 15 September, 2025 Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010204342024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5425/2024 ASHOK KR AGARWALLA S/O LATE SURAJMAL AGARWALLA, R/O A.T. ROAD, BHARALUMUKH, DIST KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI9, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI6, ASSAM 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI3 ASSAM 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BARPETA W.R. DIVISION BARPETA781301 DIST BARPETA ASSAM 4:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BARPETA W.R. SUBDIVISION BARPETA781301 DIST BARPETA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P TALUKDAR, MS D ANGANA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, WATER RESOURCE, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER 15.09.2025 Heard Ms. D. Angana, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C. Sharma, learned State Counsel for the respondents. 2. By filing this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to release the security deposit amount of Rs.89,201/ in connection with the work of "Protection of Pampara, PubMahachara, Kachumara,AlopatiMajerchar and its adjoining areas from the erosion of river Brahmaputra". 3. The petitioner, who is a registered contractor under the Water Resources Department, Government of Assam had executed the work pursuant to the work order dated 01.03.2016 for Protection of Pampara, PubMahachara, Kachumara,AlopatiMajerchar and its adjoining areas from the erosion of river Brahmaputra. It is contended by the petitioner that the amount of Rs.89,201/ is a balance pending liability for the execution of the aforesaid work which is yet to be paid by the respondent authorities although the same is admitted and undisputed. 4. Ms. Angana, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, although, the averments made in the writ petition is for payment of outstanding admitted amount of Rs.89,201/, the said amount is a security deposit amount which the petitioner had deposited during the course of execution of the above work. She submits that since the petitioner has satisfactorily completed the work awarded Page No.# 3/4 to him and the defect liability period having been over, the respondent authority would not be permitted to withhold the security deposit amount. Therefore, she submits that the respondent authority may be directed to release the amount of Rs.89,201/ to the petitioner. 5. Mr. C. Sharma, learned State Counsel while referring to the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, submits that although the petitioner has wrongly projected the amount of Rs.89,201/ to be an admitted outstanding liability, same pertains to security deposit. He submits that the petitioner has to apply for refund of the security deposit within three years from the date of completion of the aforesaid work and on such application the department has to release the same if there is no any defect in the said work. However, in the instant case, the petitioner did not apply for release of the security deposit within three years and could not produce any demand before the concerned Treasury for release of the same. As such, until the petitioner makes an application, no amount of the security deposit could be released. 6. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 7. Admittedly, the amount claimed by the petitioner is a security deposit amount and not the balance outstanding liability in connection with the execution of the work of Protection of Pampara, PubMahachara, Kachumara,AlopatiMajerchar and its adjoining areas from the erosion of river Brahmaputra. It is also the admitted position that there is no dispute with regard to the deposit of Rs.89,201/ as security deposit. Page No.# 4/4 8. Having considered that the amount of Rs.89,201/ is a security deposit