Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010109102018 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3413/2018 FAIZUL HOQUE LASKAR AND ANR. S/O ZORIB ALI LASKAR R/O AJAB ALI ROAD, WARD NO. 1, HAILAKANDI, PIN - 788151, DIST. DISTRICT, ASSAM. 1.1: NURUN NEHAR LASKAR W/O LATE FAIZUL HOQUE LASKAR R/O AJAB ALI ROAD WARD NO. 1 HAILAKANDI PIN - 788151 DIST.HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 1.2: NOZIBUL HOQUE LASKAR S/O LATE FAIZUL HOQUE LASKAR R/O AJAB ALI ROAD WARD NO. 1 HAILAKANDI PIN - 788151 DIST.HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 1.3: AMINUL HOQUE LASKAR S/O LATE FAIZUL HOQUE LASKAR R/O AJAB ALI ROAD WARD NO. 1 HAILAKANDI PIN - 788151 DIST.HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 2: MD. ABDUL MALIK BARBHUIYA S/O SAFIKUR RAHMAN BARBHUIYA R/O VILL- BORBOND PART-I Page No.# 2/7 P.O. BORBOND PIN - 788164 DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE COMMISSIONER OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ASSAM JURIPAR PANJABARI GUWAHATI - 781037. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT JURIPAR PANJABARI GUWAHATI - 781037. 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI P.O. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN - 788151. 5:THE CEO-CUM-PROJECT DIRECTOR DRDA HAILAKANDI P.O. AND P.S. HAILAKANDI DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN - 788151. 6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HAILAKANDI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK P.O. AND P.S. HAILAKANDI DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN - 788151 Page No.# 3/7 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S NATH, MR. R A CHOUDHURY,MR. R A MAJUMDAR,MR R DHAR,MS C MEDHI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, P AND R.D. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 29.01.2026 Heard Shri RA Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department and Shri G. Bokolial, learned State Counsel. 2. The instant writ petition has been instituted by the petitioners, who are 2 in nos., for release of contractual dues. The petitioner no. 1 claims to have supplied certain materials for which a bill of Rs.5,26,600/- was raised. Similar claims by the petitioner no. 2 to have supplied materials for which a bill of Rs.15,80,942/- was raised. As the bills have not been cleared, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. At the outset, Shri Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners has informed that so far as the grievance of the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, the same has been redressed and the existing grievance is only for the claim qua the petitioner no. 1. 4. Shri Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, by drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 2 on 05.06.2024, has however submitted that the claim of the petitioner no. 1 is disputed. For ready reference, the paragraphs 5 and 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition are extracted hereinbelow: Page No.# 4/7 “5. That with regards to the statements made in the paragraphs 4 to 7 of the writ petition, your humble deponent begs to state that the authorities at the District/Block level are mainly responsible for entering the material bills in the MIS, duly observing all procurement and financial rules in real time against the supply of requisite materials at the work sites for execution of the work. Once the bills are uploaded in the MIS, it creates a liability against the schemes executed and the payment may be done subject to availability of fund. It is pertinent to mention that the supply of materials for any scheme under MGNREGA is done by a Registered Supplier only when there is a specific Supply Order issued by any District/Block level authority. However, as per report submitted by the BDO, Hailakandi Dev. Block, there are no such records for supply of materials available in the Office of the Hailakandi Dev. Block in the name of the scheme "Const. of road from NH-154 to Railway line under MGNREGA" at Hailakandi under Gangapar Dhumkar Lakhirbond GP and the schemes "Improvement of village road from Manik Uddin House to Hilal Uddin House at village Lakhirbond II" under Gangapar Dhumkar Lakhirbond GP. Further, the documents portrayed as "Work Orders" by the petitioners in the instant writ petition (kindly refer to Annexures A and B, at pg 16 and 19 of the writ petition, respectively) are communications by the Junior Engineer, Hailakandi Dev. Block addressed to the BDO, Hailakandi Dev. Block, requesting for supply of materials for the schemes mentioned therein. The said documents are not Supply Orders issued to anyone for supply of materials and therefore, cannot be treated as such. Furthermore, as per the BDO's report, no such records of material bills are available in the MGNREGA-Soft against schemes mentioned in the writ Page No.# 5/7 petition. So, there are no payments due with regard to material bills against the said scheme. … 7. That with regards to the statements made in the paragraphs 12 and 13 of the writ petition, your humble deponent begs to state that in order to create liability against the materials supplied in respect of a scheme, the concerned Programme Officer has to upload the material bills in the MIS, following all the procurement/financial rules, in real time. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention here that the Ministry of Rural Development, Govt. of India, vide its Letter No. J-11060/58/2020-RE- VI(373243) dated 19.03.2021 had instructed the State Govt. that the entry of wages and material bills must be completed in real time by the concerned Programme Officer, prior to marking the work/scheme as "physically completed". Once the work has been marked physically completed in the MIS, no further bookings of expenditure will be possible. However, in respect of the present case, no pending material bill / material liability has been found against the schemes mentioned in the writ petition in the MIS presently. Hence, the Commissionerate, P&RD cannot make any payment to the petitioner for bills which are not available in the MIS.” 5. There is a clear averment that there is no record of any supply made or any pending bills. 6. The Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tamsher Ali & Ors. -Vs- State of Assam and Others, reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1 has laid down certain guidelines qua a Writ Court to entertain an application for release of Page No.# 6/7 contractual dues, 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 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.” 7. In the instant case, 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 no. 1 to raise his claim in the Page No.# 7/7 appropriate Civil Court. 8. In view of the above, no relief whatsoever can be granted to the petitioner no. 1. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed. Liberty is however given to the petitioner no. 1 to approach the appropriate Civil Court, if permitted by law, for redressal of his grievance. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant