Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010027942017 2022:GAU-AS:17048 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3728/2017 SANTI SAHU W/O. LT. CHATURI PRASAD SAHU, VILL. RAJYESWARPUR PT-VII, P.O. JHAPIRBOND, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN-788163. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCE DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3. 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPTT. HAILAKANDI DIVISION P.O. and DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788151 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S K DAS, MS S R MAZARBHUIYA,MS. A BEGUM,MR. A M BARBHUIYA,MR.S K CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : MS.B GOSWAMI R. 1 TO 3., SC, WATER RESOURCE Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 29.01.2026 Heard Shri AM Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department, which has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 05.04.2025. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances and also the aspect that this writ petition is pending since the year 2017, the same is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 3. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted for payment of outstanding bills for work orders dated 05.02.2002, 16.02.2002, 19.02.2002 and 28.02.2002. It is contended that the petitioner was allotted the aforesaid work orders for construction of protection of the Katlicherra Bazar from the erosion of river Katakhal for which the bills were raised. However, the same not being released, the instant writ petition has been filed. 4. Shri Barbhuiya, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the claim forms a legal right which has been violated. On the other hand, Ms. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department has submitted that there is no document enclosed regarding the acknowledgment of liability. She has however submitted that the admissible amount has already been released and only an amount of Rs.3,723/- is the balance which is to be released to the petitioner. 5. The scope of a writ petition to entertain and adjudicate an application for release of contractual dues is limited and the guidelines have been laid down by Page No.# 3/4 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, 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.” 6. In the present case, it transpires that the amount entitled to the petitioner has already been released to him and there is only a balance amount of Page No.# 4/4 Rs.3,723/- to be paid to the petitioner. 7. In view of the above, while this Court directs to release of the aforesaid balance amount of Rs.3,723/- to the petitioner in terms of the guidelines laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tamsher Ali (supra), the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court for making further claim, if permissible in law. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant