Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010086732024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2429/2024 MD. SAHAB UDDIN MAZUMDAR S/O LATE AYUB ALI MAZUMDAR, R/O SOMARALI BAZAR, P.O.-SOMARALI, 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 29.01.2026 Heard Ms. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri RR Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, PHE. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court for release of contractual dues for certain works claim to have been done in the year 2014-15 under Hojai PHE Division in the district of Hojai. It is submitted that the work was completed in all respects and in this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Completion Certificate as well as Physical Progress Report. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the representation submitted on 14.11.2023. 4. Shri Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, PHE has, at the outset, submitted that to entertain a writ petition and pass orders for release of contractual 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 has also raised the issue of delay in approaching the Court as the work was in Page No.# 3/4 the year 2014-15. 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 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 instant case, there is no acknowledgment of the liability by the Page No.# 4/4 Chief Engineer / Head of the Department. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the writ petition. 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. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant