Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010008292025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/254/2025 M/S ENGINEERS GUILD A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HOUSE NO. 26, FARM GATE (JANA PATH), P.O.- KHANAPARA, P.S.- DISPUR, GUWAHATI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(METRO), ASSAM, PIN- 781022. REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNER SRI SANJIB KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, SON OF LATE MUKTI NATH BHATTACHARYA. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, MINISTRY OF DEVELOPMENT OF NORTH EASTER REGION (DONER), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, VIGYAN BHAWAN ANNEXE, MAULANA AZAD ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110011. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY(W) GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS ROAD (BUDGET) DEPARTMENT DISPUR DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781006. 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER Page No.# 2/5 PWD (BORDER ROADS AND NEC) ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP(M) PIN- 781003. 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP(M) PIN- 781003. 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER PWD NALBARI ROADS CIRLCE NALBARI PIN- 781335. 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NALBARI DISTRICT TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION NALBARI ASSAM. PIN- 781335. 7:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD NALBARI RURAL ROAD SUB-DIVISION NALBARI ASSAM. PIN- 781335 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A BISWAS, MR P K BASU,MR R KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MRS. R DEVI (C.G.C),SC, PWD BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 21.07.2026 Heard Shri A. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms R Devi, learned CGC and Shri B Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, PWD. Page No.# 3/5 2. The instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a direction for release of contractual dues amounting to Rs.99,48,909/-(Rupees Ninety Nine Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Nine) only with interest. 3. It is contended that the petitioner had participated in a Notice Inviting Tender dated 17.08.2017 pursuant to which he was granted the Letter of Acceptance on 06.10.2017 for the work namely, ”Construction of Road from NH- 31 to Kashimpur Suplekuchi via Purbabharati under NLCPR in Nalbari District”. Thereafter, notice to proceed was issued on 25.10.2017. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while the completion tenure was fixed at 24 months, there was extension granted as the situation had demanded. It is also submitted that the first approved RA Bill was granted and till 24.04.2020, the first extension was granted. 4. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Progress Certificate wherein the bill value was mentioned and also the Final Payment RA Bill wherein the amount has been mentioned. He has also submitted that due to certain change in policy, the work was foreclosed. Nonetheless, the Utilization Certificate was granted on 18.03.2023 and also the Completion Certificate as per which, an amount of Rs.81,53,946/-(Rupees Eighty One Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Six) only being the Central share was reflected. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under such circumstances, it would be wholly unreasonable to withhold the amount. He has submitted that under the scheme in question, the sharing patternvis-a-vis the Central Government and the State Government is 90:10. Page No.# 4/5 5. Per contra, Ms. Devi, the learned CGC,while not denying that the work is under a scheme, has submitted that the Central Government is required to release the funds in two installments and the first installment was released. However, the second installment was not released as the petitioner could not fulfill the requirements, namely, achieving at least 50% of the work and the lack of the State Government to furnish Utilization Certificate. It is contended that the petitioner could complete only 35% of the work. 6. Supporting the stand of the Central Government, Shri Choudhury, thelearned Standing Counsel, PWD has submitted that only 25% of the work could be completed by the petitioner and in spite of numerous notices to speed up the work, no progress could be achieved. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to Clause 1.1.1.17 and 28 and has submitted that due to non- achievement of the milestone, the amount cannot be released apart from the fact that the second installment is yet to be released by the Central Government. 7. Shri Biswas, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in his rejoinder has denied the contention of the respondents that necessary progress could not be achieved by the petitioner. He has submitted that the documents would show that sufficient progress could be achieved which is supported by the Completion Certificate as well as Utilization Certificate. 8. Upon considering the facts and circumstances and the materials available before this Court, it clearly appears that the dispute would be within the realm of disputed questions of fact which a Writ Court would not be in a position to enter and adjudicate. It may also be noted that such disputes have been placed Page No.# 5/5 on record by way of affidavit and therefore, has to be taken into consideration. 9. Under those circumstances, while this Court is not inclined to enter into the realm of disputed questions of fact, the petitioner may not be precluded from seeking redressal of his grievance before the competent Civil Court. 10. At this stage, Shri Biswas, the learned counsel has also submitted that the Public Works Department has taken up the objection of availability of arbitration clause. He has submitted that since there is involvement of the Central Government in the dispute, redressal of his grievance may not be able to be done completely in an arbitration. 11. Considering the above, the writ petition is closed by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court, if permitted by law. The petitioner would also be at liberty to take the aid of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which, if done would be considered by the learned Civil Court in accordance with law. The petitioner would also be at liberty to take up the plea that the arbitration clause would not be an absolute bar for adjudication of such disputes and if the same is taken, the learned Civil Court would consider the same and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant