Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010267672024 2025:GAU-AS:12267 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6738/2024 PRANAB RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE S/O LATE DOLEN BHATTACHARJEE . RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAMGAON PO AND PS BISWANTH CHARIALI DIST BISWANATH ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 2:THE MISSION DIRECTOR JAL JEEVAN MISSION ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI 36 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PHE) ASSAM PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HENGRABARI GUWAHATI 36 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Page No.# 2/6 PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT BISWANATH CHARIALI DIVISION BISWANATH CHARIALI DIST BISWANATH ASASAM 6:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT BISWANATH CHARIALI SUB DIVISION BISWANATH CHARIALI DIST BISWANATH ASASAM 7:THE SECTIONAL OFFICER (PHE) BISWANATH I SECTION PO BISWANATH CHARIALI DIST BISWANATH ASSAM. 8:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT WATER AND SANITATION MISSION (DWSM) JAL JIVAN MISSION BISWANATH PO BISWANATH CHARIALI DIST BISWANATH ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. A K AZAD Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS Page No.# 3/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : Date: 04.09.2025 Heard Mr. P. K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, PHE Department, appearing for the respondent nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance & Taxation Department, for the respondent no.3. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceedings has raised grievance with regard to the refusal on the part of the respondent authorities in releasing to him an amount of Rs.11,59,194/-(Rupees Eleven Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand One Hundred Ninety Four only) against the 1st running bill for the work “Implementation of Kamargaon Retrofitting Piped Water Supply Scheme of Biswanath Chariali(PHE) Division, under the Jal Jeevan Mission, Assam, executed by him. 3. As projected in the Writ Petition, the respondent authorities had accorded revised Administrative Approval for 14 nos., of works including the ”Kamargaon Retrofitting Piped Water Supply Scheme under Biswanath Chariali (PHE) Division, under Jal Jeevan Mission”, for the financial year 2022-2023. 4. In terms of the approval granted, a revised Technical Sanction was accorded for an amount of Rs.53,39,000/-(Rupees Fifty Three Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousan) as per the revised estimate prepared by the Divisional authorities. 5. The petitioner being found to be suitable for the execution of the work, in question, a work order came to be issued to him on 17.06.2023 for the said work at an approximate value of Rs.29,83,000/-(Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand). Page No.# 4/6 6. On receipt of the said work order dated 17.06.2023, the petitioner initiated the process for executing the work, in question, and had executed the components of the work as was required to be so executed including installation of a Diesel Generator(D.G) Set at the site. 7. On 12.02.2024 the Sectional Officer(PHE), Sakomotha Block, Biswanath Chariali Division, prepared the 1st running bill for the work executed by the petitioner till then, amounting to Rs.11,59,194/-(Rupees Eleven Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand One Hundred Ninety Four) vide 1st Divisional Bill dated 12.02.2024. Thereafter the site, wherein, the work was being so executed by the petitioner, was inspected by the authorities of the Public Health Engineering Division, Biswanath Chariali, and found that the petitioner had executed the work as per plan and estimate. 8. Accordingly, the bill as prepared was thereafter, forwarded to the higher authority for necessary approval and however, the Chief Engineer, PHE, Assam, upon consideration of the said bill was pleased to reject the same on 25.10.2024, by citing the reason that TS amount (CS, SS) is found to be higher than the Administrative Approval amount, herein. The 1st running bill of the petitioner not having been released, the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings. 9. Mr. P. K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, after reiterating the facts of the noticed hereinabove, has submitted that the reason assigned for the rejection of the 1st running bill of the petitioner is clearly perverse, inasmuch as, the petitioner having been issued with a work order and therein, the value of the work having been denoted as Rs.29,83,000/-(Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Eight Three Thousand), the 1st running bill of the petitioner being within the scope of the work so allotted to him and the value, thereof, being also lower than the total value of the work as allotted to him, the respondent authorities ought not to have rejected the bill of the petitioner on the ground that the technical sanction as granted in the matter was for a value higher than that so granted for the administrative approval for the work, in question. Page No.# 5/6 10. Mr. P. K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the work has done by the petitioner in the manner was so done strictly in accordance to the plan and estimate and accordingly, the petitioner would be entitled to the amount as reflected in the 1st running bill. 11. Mr. R. R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents on the contrary has submitted that the respondent authorities are bound by the procedural sanctions granted by the authorities in the matter for the work, in question, and in the event, there is a deviation in the technical sanction as well as the administrative approval granted for the work, without the same being reconciled, the petitioner would not be entitled to release his dues. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials brought on record. 13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the ground for rejection of the bill of the petitioner, this Court, is of the considered view that the petitioner would now be required to approach the Chief Engineer, PHE, Assam, with a representation praying for release of his bill and therein, bring on record, the details of the works executed by him in support of the items as set out in the running bill dated 12.02.2024. The Chief Engineer on receipt of the said bill shall examine the same and in the event, there exist any deviation between the technical sanction granted in the matter as well as the administrative approval granted by the competent authority, the matter be placed before the competent authority for a reconciliation in the matter, and thereafter basing on the decision as rendered in the matter by the competent authority, direct for processing the said bill of the petitioner and to release him the amount due to him. The said exercise be initiated and concluded within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a representation of the petitioner, along with a certified copy of this order. 14. With the above observations and directions, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. Page No.# 6/6 JUDGE Comparing Assistant