Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010192172017 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/156/2017 SALIM HUSSAIN S/O. ABUL HUSSAIN, VILL. LAKHIGANJ, P.O. LAKHIGANJ, P.S. BILASIPARA, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN. 783348. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and 7 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. ROADS, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. ROADS DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. PWD ROADS CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003. 4:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PDW ROADS WESTERN ASSAM CIRCLE Page No.# 2/5 GOALPARA ASSAM PIN. 783101. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHUBRI P.O. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN. 783301. 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROADS DHUBRI RURAL ROADS DIVISION DHUBRI P.O. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN. 783301. 7:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROADS BILASIPARA RURAL ROADS SUB-DIVISION DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN. 783301. 8:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BILASIPARA REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN. 783348 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N I KHAN, MR.M R KHANDAKAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD ROADSR. 1,2,3,4,6,8, GA, ASSAM(R. 5,8.) BEFORE Page No.# 3/5 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 27.01.2026 Heard Shri MR Khandakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for all the respondents. 2. The instant writ petition which was instituted in the year 2017 is with regard to a claim for release of contractual dues. As per the facts projected, the petitioner, who is a registered contractor under the PWD, was allotted certain works relating to repair and renovations of roads which were damaged in the floods in the year 2015. The petitioner claims to have executed the works for which verification exercise was also done on 14.09.2015. However, the amount in question has not been released to the petitioner. 3. Shri Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General has however submitted that to entertain a writ petition of present nature, there has to be acknowledgment of liability by the Chief Engineer / Head of the Department, as laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tamsher Ali & Ors. -Vs- State of Assam and Others, reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1. He has submitted that in absence of such acknowledgment by the Head of the Department, no relief can be granted in a writ proceeding. 4. The Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case of Tamsher Ali (supra) has laid down certain guidelines, which are as follows: “i) All claims for payment of outstanding dues would be entertained for consideration provided the same are admitted by the respective departments. The admissions of liability shall have to be certified by the respective Chief Engineer in respect of Works Departments and in respect Page No.# 4/5 of other departments by the Head of the departments. ii) All claims for payment of admitted outstanding dues would be entertained for payment provided the claims are lodged before the competent authority within a period of three years from the date of the payment becoming due. iii) All claims for payment of admitted outstanding dues in respect of which the contractors intend or have approached the Hon'ble Court, in such cases, the contractors must approach the Hon'ble High Court within a period of 3 years from the date of the payment becoming due. This view has been taken as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhailal Bhai and Ors. reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006 at Para 21 has observed that though provisions of Limitation Act do not as such apply to proceedings under Article 226, the period of Limitation prescribed by Limitation Act for instituting a civil action may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured.” 5. A perusal of the materials on record including the documents would show that there is no acknowledgment of the liability by the Chief Engineer / Head of the Department. A Writ Court not being of a Court on facts, disputed questions cannot be resolved. At the same time, there cannot be any restriction on the rights of the petitioner to its claim in the appropriate Court. Therefore, by balancing the equities, while this writ petition is dismissed, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court for redressal of this grievance. 6. If such a recourse is taken, the petitioner may take the aid of Section 14 Page No.# 5/5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining the delay. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant