Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010237112022 2025:GAU-AS:14567 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7482/2022 JHANTU GHOSH S/O- LATE SURENDRA NATH GHOSH, RESIDENT OF - KOKRAJHAR, WARD NO. 9, THANAPARA, P.O. AND P.S.- KOKRAJHAR, DIST- KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BAKSA W.R. DIVISION MUSHALPUR ASSAM. 3:THE ASSTT. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER UDALGURI W.R. SUB-DIVISION UDALGURI ASSAM Advocate for the petitioner(s): Ms. A Talukdar Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. R Deka, Standing Counsel, Page No.# 2/4 Water Resource Department Mr. NR Sharma for the BTC B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 29.10.2025 Heard Ms. A Talukdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R Deka, the learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Assam and Mr. NR Sharma, the learned Counsel, who appears on behalf of the BTC. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in releasing the outstanding bill amounting to Rs.8,79,753/- to which the petitioner is entitled to in respect of the work order pertaining to the Scheme “M & R to Protect Right Bank of River Golondi at Medhipara Village for 2018-19”. 3. The case of the petitioner herein is that after the work order dated 28.02.2018 was allotted to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer, Baksa W.R. Deptt., Baksa, the petitioner had successfully completed the work allotted to him as mentioned above, as per the plan and estimates and within the stipulated time. Thereafter, the petitioner on completion of the work submitted the bill amounting to Rs.9,99,721/-. Out of which, the respondent authorities had made a part payment of Rs.2,07,291/- However till date, the remaining balance amount of Rs.8,79,753/- as claimed has not been paid to the petitioner. Page No.# 3/4 4. The petitioner had made several representations from time to time for release of the aforesaid outstanding dues. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner had to invest a large amount of money and due to non-release of the aforesaid outstanding dues by the respondent authorities, it has become very difficult for the petitioner to carry out his business and maintain his livelihood. Consequently, finding no other alternatives, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition. 5. Ms. R Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Water Resource Department as well as Mr. NR Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the BTC submitted that there is no denial to the fact that the work order in question was issued to the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that the entitlement of the petitioner would depend upon verification to be carried out by the respondent authorities. 6. Upon perusal of the materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner had completed the above-mentioned work, the petitioner would be entitled to the amount. However, for the same, verification on the part of the respondent authorities would be required. 7. This Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions:- i) The respondent authorities shall verify as to whether the petitioner had successfully executed the work pertaining to the Scheme i.e. “M & R to Protect Right Bank of River Golondi at Medhipara Village for 2018-19”. ii) The respondent authorities shall also verify as to whether the petitioner had submitted the requisite documents which are required for the purpose of releasing the outstanding amount as claimed by the petitioner. Page No.# 4/4 iii)The respondent authorities shall also verify the entitlement of the petitioner to the outstanding dues, and if upon verification in the manner stated above, it is found that the petitioner is entitled to any such amount, the respondent authorities shall pay the same to the petitioner as per the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Tamsher Ali and Others Vs. the State of Assam and Others, reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1. iv) The above exercise of verification be completed within a period of 1 (one) month from the date a certified copy of the instant order is served upon the Principal Secretary, BTC. JUDGE Comparing Assistant