Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010087092024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2428/2024 RAJU KAR S/O LATE DINESH CHANDRA KAR, R/O JUGIJAN, P.O.-JUGIJAN, DIST- HOJAI-782439 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PHE) HOJAI DIVISION HOJAI NAGAON DISTRICT-782435 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PHE) HOJAI DIVISION HOJAI NAGAON DISTRICT-782435 4:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PHE) HOJAI DIVISION HOJAI NAGAON DISTRICT-782435 5:THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PHE) HOJAI DIVISION HOJAI NAGAON DISTRICT-78243 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. B CHOWDHURY, IMSENKALA Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 27.01.2026 Heard Ms. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri RR Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, PHE. 2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted with regard to a claim for release of contractual dues. It is contended that the petitioner was allotted a work order for supplying fitting and fixing submersible cable at Derapathar PWSS, Zone-II under the programme Non-Plan (defunct); for renovation of treatment plant at Derapather PWSS, Zone-II under the programme Non-Plan (defunct) for renovation of raw water & clear pump house above UGR at Derapather PWSS, Zone-II under the programme Non-Plan (defunct) for the year 2014-15 under Hojai PHE Division. However, the dues have not been cleared. Accordingly, the writ petition has been filed. 3. Shri Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, PHE has, at the outset, submitted that to entertain a writ petition and pass orders for release of dues, the petitioner has to fulfill the requirements 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. Amongst others, there is a requirement of acknowledgment of liability by the Chief Engineer / Head of the Department. In the instant case, there is no such acknowledgment by the Head of the Department and therefore, no relief can be granted in a writ proceeding. He Page No.# 3/4 has also raised the issue of delay in approaching the Court as the work was of the year 2014. 4. Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that there may not be an acknowledgment in writing by the Head of the Department. Nonetheless, there are sufficient documents to show that the work was successfully executed and the amount has been unreasonably withheld. 5. The Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case of Tamsher Ali (supra) 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 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 Page No.# 4/4 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. Amongst others, there is a requirement of acknowledgment of liability in writing of the dues by the Chief Engineer / Head of the Department. 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 to raise his claim in the appropriate Court. 8. 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. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant