Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010126502025 2025:GAU-AS:15735 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3505/2025 SYED SALIMUDDIN AHMED SON OF LATE NAJIRUDDIN AHMED, RESIDENT OF NIZ-KAURBAHA, PO BARGHULI, PS TAMULPUR, DISTRICT BAKSA, ASSAM, PIN 781354 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, ASSAM, GUWAHATI -6 2:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF BTC BODOFA NWGWR DIST- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN-783370 3:THE SECRETARY OF BTC BODOFA NWGWR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT DIST- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN-783370 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-03 5:THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER Page No.# 2/5 CUM CHD IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT BTC SECRETARIAT COMPLEX BODOFA NWGWR KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN-783370 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SUKLAI SERFANG GORESWAR DIVISION (IRRIGATION) GORESWAR TAMULPUR BTC DIST- BAKSA ASSAM PIN-78136 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P P PHUKAN, MR P BORAH,UDAY SAIKIA,MR H BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION, SC. BTC BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 19.11.2025 Heard Mr H Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr R M Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel, BTC, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7; and Ms D S Neog, the learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department, for the respondent Nos. 1 and 4. 2. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner was entrusted with the Work Orders mentioned hereinunder: i) Construction of main Canal D2 from chainage 30820 m of ERM, Sukla Irrigation Project under PMKSY-AIBP for the year 2021-22. [NIT No.- CHD/ET- 24/22-23/2 Dt.-17.11.2022, sanctioned amount- Rs. 15,45,281.00]. Page No.# 3/5 ii) Improvement of embankment into graven road for using as inspection road for using as inspection road of DI Main Canal (wide Side) from chainage 3400 m to 4000 m of ERM, Sukla Irrigation Project under PMKSY—AIBP for the year 2021- 22 (Group No. – 77) [NIT No. –SSGDI/T/110/Pt-IV/2021/50 Dt. 02.01.2023, sanctioned amount- Rs. 6,38,647.00] iii) Construction of 8.0 Cusec Capacity CC Carrier Canal at Chainage 1150 of D2 (L/S) from Chainage 600 m to 700 m of ERM, Sukla Irrigation Project under PMKSY-SY-AIBP for the year 2021-22. (GR. No. 53). [NIT No. SSGDI/T/110/Pt- IV/2021/50 Dated 02.01.2023, Sanctioned amount- Rs. 7,63,600.00] The aforesaid Work Orders were in respect of “Extension, Renovation and Modernization of Sukla Irrigation Project under PMKSY-AIBP, BTR for the year 2021-22” under Irrigation Department, BTC, Kokrajhar.” 3. The work value of the allotted work was Rs. 234,38,58,500 (Rupees Two Hundred Thirty Four Crores Thirty Eight Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand Five Hundred) Only under PMKSY-AIBP, for the year 2021-2022. Accordingly, the petitioner started the work and after completion of the aforesaid 3 (three) works within the stipulated time under the supervision and guidance of the Executive Engineer and the Assistant Executive Engineer, Suklai Serfang Goreswar Division (Irrigation), Goreswar, Tamulpur, BTC, the respondent Nos. 6 and 7, respectively, he submitted the required bills before the competent authority, but the said bills are lying without making any payment to the petitioner till date despite his best efforts. Thereafter, the petitioner duly submitted the bills, which are total amounting to Rs. 18,40,441.00 (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Forty Thousand Four Hundred and Forty One) Page No.# 4/5 only and verified and endorsed as well as undisputed by the competent authorities thereon. In this regard, the advice slip for payment were also prepared and submitted by him, showing the total outstanding bill amount of Rs. 18,40,441.00, only to be paid by the respondent authorities to the petitioner. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that although he has completed the allotted contract works as per the aforesaid Work Orders, under the respondent authorities and submitted bills, statement of Utilization Certificate, Completion Certificate, Physical Inspection Report, etc., after being verified by the concerned departmental authorities on this behalf, but the respondent authorities failed to make the above stated payment at any relevant point of time. The petitioner has been approaching the respondent authorities, time and again, for his non-payment of his long pending bills, and apprising about his deteriorating health condition, but the respondent authorities have not responded till date. 5. Mr R M Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bodoland Territorial Council submitted that as to whether the petitioner had completed the works in terms with the work orders in question and whether the certificate issued that the petitioner is entitled to the amount claimed is subject to further verification which needs to be carried out by the Respondent Authorities and it is only on the basis of such verification, the actual entitlement of the petitioner could be ascertained. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met if a direction is given to the Respondent Authorities to verify as to whether the petitioner has completed the construction work in accordance with the work orders mentioned hereinabove and thereupon to ascertain the exact amount to Page No.# 5/5 which the petitioner is entitled to, if any. 7. It is under such circumstances, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition thereby directing the Respondent Authorities more particularly the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, to verify the entitlement of the petitioner on the basis of the work orders which were issued in favour of the petitioner and as to whether the petitioner has completed the works to the extent certified in question and thereupon, after verification if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to any amount, the same should be paid to the petitioner in terms with the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tamsher Ali and Others Vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1. The said verification be completed within a period of 1 (one) month from the date a certified copy of the instant order is served upon the Respondent No. 2 and the payment thereupon be made in terms with the judgment rendered in the case of Tamsher Ali (supra). 8. With the above observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant