Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010198182023 2025:GAU-AS:5264 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5214/2023 M/S TRADERS (ASSAM) AND ANR A REGISTERED PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DEWAL ROAD, JORHAT- 785001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, NAMELY RAJENDRA PRASAD AGARWAL, RESIDENT OF DEWAL ROAD, JORHAT. 2: RAJENDRA PRASAD AGARWAL S/O- LATE RAM KISHORE AGARWAL PROPRIETOR OF M/S TRADERS (ASSAM) RESIDENT OF DEWAL ROAD JORHAT- 785001 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 Page No.# 2/4 JORHAT- DIVISION NA-ALI JORHAT Advocate for the Petitioner : MS M HAZARIKA, MS K LOYA,MS. S NEWAR 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 ₹ 68,60,914/-. 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. The contractor has received part payment against claimed bills and some parts of the same are yet to be paid. However, the outstanding amount of ₹ 68,60,914/- is still to be paid to the contractor/petitioners. Page No.# 3/4 4. Ms. RM Barooah, learned counsel for the Finance Department submits that she has not received any instruction till date, with regard to that claims of the petitioners. 5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 6. 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, if true is arbitrary and unfair. Funds should be earmarked prior to issuance of work orders to the petitioners. 7. Mr. RR Gogoi, learned counsel for the PHE submits that a verification will have to be made to ascertain the specific amount payable by the respondents to the petitioners. 8. In view of the above reasons, 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. Page No.# 4/4 10. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant