Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010083542024 2025:GAU-AS:88 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2262/2024 AJAY RANJAN HALOI SON OF SRI RAJENDRA NATH HALOI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. BIHAMPUR, P.S. BELSOR, DISTRICT- NALBARI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006, KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI PIN- 781003 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BARPETA WATER RESOURCES DIVISION BARPETA DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHAIRMAN DISTRICT DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY BARPETA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSA Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S CHUTIA, MS. P CHUTIA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, WATER RESOURCE, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 06.01.2025 Heard Ms. S. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner’s contractual bill amounting to Rs.95,200/- has not been paid. She submits that the RTI reply dated 08.02.2024 issued by the SPIO-cum-Assistant Engineer, Barpeta Water Resources Division has admitted the fact that an amount of Rs.95,200/- is payable to the petitioner. 2. Ms. D. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 submits that the work done by the petitioner was under the Calamity Relief Fund (CRF) Scheme “Immediate Measures to Protect Bahari Satra, Fulbari, Bhogerpar and its Adjoining Area from the Erosion of river Brahmaputra for 2007-08.” Ms. D. Jain submits that all necessary documents with regard to the said CRF scheme mentioned above have been sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta in the year 2015. 3. Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned counsel submits that as per the documents on record, the concerned Deputy Commissioner has sent the concerned documents to the Addl. Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue & Disaster Management Department on 07.01.2016. Besides the above, he does not have any other knowledge of whether the petitioner’s claim is a genuine claim or not. Page No.# 3/3 4. On considering the fact that no action has been taken by the respondent authorities with regard to the claim of the petitioner for payment of bill amounting to Rs.95,200/-, the respondent No.4 is directed to examine the claim of the petitioner and pay to the petitioner the admitted dues. The entire exercise should be concluded within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant