Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010119162020 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3508/2020 ARUP BAKSHI, S/O- DWIJENDRA KR. BAKSHI, CHOUDHURIPARA, BAKHARIVITA, BONGAIGAON, P.O. AND P.S. BONGAIGAON, DIST.- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 783380 VERSUS BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. AND 3 ORS. HAVING ITS H.O. AT NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI- 110001 2:THE GENERAL MANAGER BSNL OFFICE OF THE GMTD BSNL BONGAIGAON P.O. AND P.S. BONGAIGAON DIST.- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783380 3:THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (ADMINISTRATION) OFFICE OF THE GMTD BSNL BONGAIGAON P.O. AND P.S. BONGAIGAON DIST.- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783380 4:THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (LEGAL) BSNL BONGAIGAON Page No.# 2/4 P.O. AND P.S. BONGAIGAON DIST.- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 78338 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R DHAR, MR A DEY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BSNL, MR. R THADANI,MR. B PATHAK,MR. B C PATHAK BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 23.04.2026 The present petition under Article 226 has been filed seeking the following reliefs: “In the premises aforesaid, Your Petitioner humbly prays that Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records of the case and issue a Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order should not be issued directing the respondents to make payment of the admitted bill amount of Rs.73,13,437/- along with interest @ 12% for such delayed payment and/or issue such other Writ, Direction or order to give full and complete relief to the Petitioner and on hearing cause or causes shown and on perusal of the record be pleased to make the Rule absolute and / or to pass such further or other order(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.” 2. As per the facts projected, pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for Infrastructure Maintenance of Exchanges, Mobile BTS and Land Line including Office Maintenance Works and guarding of vital BSNL Installation in Bongaigaon Telecom District, in which the petitioner had participated, the work was duly allotted to the petitioner. The work was completed in all respects and a bill of Rs. 87,53,710.94 was Page No.# 3/4 raised. However, the bill was not paid in full and therefore, the present writ petition. 3. I have heard Shri A. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri B. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, B.S.N.L. 4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Dey has clarified that though when the writ petition was instituted, the amount claimed which is revealed from the prayer was Rs. 73,13,437/-, in the rejoinder affidavit, such amount has been quantified to be Rs. 13,93,783/-. He has submitted that the claim is bona fide and genuine and there are no reasons for withholding the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also informed that so far as the G.S.T. documents are concerned, the same have already been enclosed in the rejoinder affidavit. 5. On the other hand, Shri Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, B.S.N.L. has submitted that as observed above, the initial claim was Rs. 73,13,437/-, however, in the rejoinder affidavit filed on 05.06.2025, the claim has been reduced to Rs. Rs. 13,93,783/-. He has submitted that the respondents dispute the said claim. However, he has added that so far as an amount of Rs.6,86,694.05 is concerned, the same has been withheld on account of non-furnishing of G.S.T. documents and the same would be released to the petitioner as and when such documents are furnished. He has further submitted that the G.S.T. documents enclosed in the rejoinder affidavit would not be sufficient as some other relevant documents are required. 6. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot deal in matters where there are disputed question of facts. In the instant case, there is a claim for release of contractual bills and in such matters, the scope of interference is limited and can be to the aspect of any admitted amount. Page No.# 4/4 7. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 on 08.01.2021 in paragraph 6, there is an admission of payment of an amount of Rs. 6,86,694.05 which is, however, subject to production of appropriate G.S.T. documents. This Court has already noted above that there is a change in the quantum of the claim which is clarified in the rejoinder affidavit. 8. Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is directed to produce the relevant G.S.T. documents for verification whereafter the admitted amount of Rs. 6,86,694.05 be released to the petitioner forthwith. This Court also further observes that if the petitioner is of the view that there is a genuine claim in any other amount, the same can be claimed in an appropriate proceeding. At this stage, Shri Pathak, learned Standing Counsel has informed that there is an arbitration clause. 9. It is accordingly directed that any further claim, as indicated above, may be raised in the appropriate proceeding, including an arbitration. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Biplab Chakraborty Digitally signed by Biplab Chakraborty Date: 2026.04.24 11:10:07 +05'30'