Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010209692019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6385/2019 MRINAL SAIKIA S/O. LT. SUREN SAIKIA, R/O. KALYANI NAGAR, KAHILIPARA, P.O. AND P.S. DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI-781019. VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. HEALTH AND FAMILY/FINANCE WELFARE (B) DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRU, PIN-781006. 2:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (B) DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP PIN-781006. 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (BUILDING) CHANDMARI GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781003. 4:THE SUPDT. ENGINEER PWD TEZPUR BUILDING CIRCLE TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM PIN-784001. 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD TEZPUR BUILDING DIVISION TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784001. 6:DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION KHANAPARA GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP PIN-781022. 7:THE PRINCIPAL CUM CHIEF SUPDT. TEZPUR MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784010 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R GOSWAMI, MS. P. KALITA,MS. R DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, HEALTH BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 29.01.2026 Heard Ms. S. Das, learned counsel appearing on instructions of Shri R. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri D. Upamanyu, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department. 2. Considering the subject matter involved and also the aspect that this writ petition is pending since the year 2019, the same is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. Page No.# 3/4 3. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is a contractor and supplier and had made certain supplies to the Tezpur Medical College & Hospital during the year 2015-16 pursuant to the Letter of Acceptance dated 11.05.2016. The petitioner claims to have been paid an amount of Rs.16,54,843/-. However, a remaining balance amount of Rs.32,36,070/- was not cleared for which the instant writ petition has been instituted. 4. Ms. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to certain documents relating to the handing over and taking over certificates and also certain legal notices issued on behalf of the petitioner making the demand. She has also drawn the attention of this Court to a communication dated 13.05.2018 whereby a detail report was sought for. 5. Shri Upamanyu, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department has submitted that to maintain a writ petition for release of contractual dues, there has to be an acknowledgment of the liability of the Chief Engineer / Head of the Department which is not in the present case. 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 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 Page No.# 4/4 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. 8. In view of the above, no relief whatsoever can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed. Liberty is however given to the petitioner 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