Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010031862025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/893/2025 HUSSAIN AHMED CHOUDHURY S/O LATE SIRAJUL HOQUE CHOUDHURY, R/O VILL- DHIT BATARASHI, P.O. TILLA BAZAR, DIST- KARIMGANJ (SRIBHUMI), ASSAM, PIN- 788709 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 OTHERS REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT ASSAM AWC BASISTHA GUWAHATI-29 3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER HAILAKANDI WATER RESOURCE CIRCLE HAILAKANDI P.O. AND DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788151 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DIVISION KARIMGANJ P.O. AND DISTRCT- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788710 5:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE SUB-DIVISION Page No.# 2/4 KARIMGANJ DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788710 6:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI- Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HAQUE, MR. A K AZAD,MR K UDDIN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, WATER RESOURCE, SC, FINANCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 19.06.2026 Heard Shri K. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, who by means of this petition has made a claim for release of contractual dues. 2. It is submitted that three works were handed over to the petitioner in the districts of Hailakandi and Karimganj which were successfully executed by him and accordingly, bills were raised amounting to Rs. 2,29,367/- which were not paid. 3. Shri Uddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a direction be issued for payment of the bills as till now, no affidavit has also been filed. 4. Shri R.M. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department has submitted that to entertain a writ petition with a claim of the present nature, the petitioner has to fulfill the requirements as laid down by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tamsher Ali & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2008 Page No.# 3/4 (4) GLT 1. One of such mandatory requirements is to have an acknowledgement of the liability in writing by the Chief Engineer/ Head of the Department which is admittedly not there in the instant case. He has also raised the issue of delay inasmuch as the work orders are of the years 2012-2013 and the approach to this Court has been made in the year 2025. 5. At this stage, Shri Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in similar cases, orders have been passed for verification. 6. The Hon’ble Full Bench in the aforesaid case of Tamsher Ali (supra) has clearly laid down that to entertain a writ petition for adjudicating a claim for contractual dues, certain essential requirements are to be fulfilled which, amongst others would require an acknowledgment in writing by the Chief Engineer/ Head of the Department. For ready reference, the relevant observations are extracted hereunder: “i) All claims for payment of outstanding dues would be entertained for consideration provided the same are admitted by the respective departments. The admissions of liability shall have to be certified by the respective Chief Engineer in respect of Works Departments and in respect of other departments by the Head of the departments. ii) All claims for payment of admitted outstanding dues would be entertained for payment provided the claims are lodged before the competent authority within a period of three years from the date of the payment becoming due. iii) All claims for payment of admitted outstanding dues in respect of which the contractors intend or have approached the Hon'ble Court, in such cases, the contractors must approach the Hon'ble High Court within a period of 3 years from the date of the payment becoming due. This view has been taken as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhailal Bhai and Ors. reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006 at Para 21 has observed that though provisions of Limitation Act do not as such apply to proceedings under Article 226, the period of Limitation prescribed by Page No.# 4/4 Limitation Act for instituting a civil action may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured.” 7. Admittedly, there is no such acknowledgement in writing as stipulated by the Hon’ble Full Bench. Therefore, without even going to the aspect of delay in approaching the Court, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition cannot be entertained which is accordingly dismissed. 8. The petitioner would, however, be at liberty to approach the Civil Court, if permissible under the law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant