Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010198492023 2025:GAU-AS:5262 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5172/2023 M/S BARTHAKUR AND COMPANY AND ANR. A REGISTERED PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DEWAL ROAD, JORHAT-785001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR NAMELY BANWARILAL AGARWAL, R/O DEWAL ROAD JORHAT 2: BANWARILAL AGARWAL PROPRIETOR OF BARTHAKHUR AND COMPANY R/O DEWAL ROAD JORHAT-78500 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR 2:THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HENGRABARI GOVERNMENT ASSAM GUWAHATI-781003 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT JORHAT DIVISION NA-ALI JORHA Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS M HAZARIKA, MS. S NEWAR,MS K LOYA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E, SC, FINANCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 30-04-2025 Heard Ms. M Hazarika, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S Newar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. RR Gogoi, learned counsel for the PHE Department as well as Ms. RM Barooah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioners have claimed that on issuance of work orders from time to time by the respondent PHE Department authorities, he had executed a number of contract- works, as indicated in the Table mentioned in paragraph 8 of the writ petition. It is averred that a Liability Statement has been issued by the respondent no. 4 admitting liability against those contract-works, to the extent of ₹ 52,62,034/-. But till date, the respondent authorities in the PHE Department have not disbursed the said amount or any part of it to the petitioners, despite repeated approaches made by the petitioners with them. Hence, the writ petition seeking disbursal of the said amount. 3. Mr. RR Gogoi, learned counsel for the PHE Department submits that para-wise reply/comments have been received through forwarding Letter No. PHEE/JOR/W- 936/334 dated 21.05.2024 issued by the Executive Engineer, PHE, Jorhat Division, Jorhat. He submits that in terms of the para-wise reply/comments received by him, which has been signed by the Executive Engineer, PHE, Jorhat Division, after submission of bills by the contractor demand for funds was placed. The contractor received part payment against claimed bills and some parts of the same are yet to be Page No.# 3/4 paid, for which fund demand was placed several times earlier. However, the funds have not been received, so as to settle the claim of the contractor. It has also been stated in the para-wise reply/comments pertaining to paragraph 9 of the writ petition, that the statements shown in the writ petition is verified by the undersigned and it reveals that the same bills are pending for payment. For para 10, it has been stated that for the balance amount liability statement had been sent and fund demand for settlement of the balance amount has been made. It has also been stated that until and unless fund is received from the State Project Management Unit (SPMU), payments cannot be released. 4. Ms. RM Barooah, learned counsel for the Finance Department submits that she has not received any instruction till date, with regard to why funds for release of the unpaid bills of the petitioners have not been given. 5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 6. What is apparent from the para-wise reply/comments that have been furnished by the respondent authorities to their counsel, is the fact that there is an admission that the petitioners are liable to be paid their bills and that the same has not been done due to funds not being provided. The petitioners having made to do certain works by the respondent authorities, it was the duty of the respondent authorities to pay the petitioners their dues/bills and the issue of non-payment of their bills due to funds not being provided, is arbitrary and unfair. Funds should have been earmarked prior to issuance of work orders to the petitioners. However, it appears that work orders had been issued to the petitioners, without the State respondents having earmarked any funds for payment to the contractor. 7. The above being said, a perusal of the para-wise reply/comments given to Mr. RR Gogoi, learned counsel for the PHE shows that there is no specific amount mentioned by Page No.# 4/4 the respondents that is payable to the petitioners. 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the Chief Engineer, PHE should verify the claim of the petitioners and take a decision as to the exact amount of dues payable to the petitioners. This direction has been made in line with the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tamsher Ali & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2008(4) GLT 1. 9. The respondents should thereafter make necessary funds available for payment of the admitted amount to the petitioners. The entire process should be completed within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant