Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010051542025 2026:GAU-AS:3508 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1538/2025 M/S GOSWAMI ENGINEERING REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS DIGANTA GOSWAMI, S/O LATE DR. BARADA KANTA GOSWAMI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, AND MONIMA GOSWAMI, W/O SRI DIGANTA GOSWAMI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O NH 37(A), BATAMARI, P.O.- BHOJKHOWASAPORI, TEZPUR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784027 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE CHIEF ENGINNER IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DHEKIAJULI BARCHALIA DIVISION (IRRIGATION) DHEKIAJULI DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784110 4:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINNER TEZPUR CIRCLE (IRRIGATION) TEZPUR DIST- SONITPUR Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM PIN-78411 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. MA Sheikh Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. N Upadhayay Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department, Govt. of Assam Date on which Judgment is reserved : NA Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 09.03.2026 Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes Pronounced JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. MA Sheikh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. N Upadhyay, the learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department, who appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not making payment of the amount to which the petitioner is entitled to upon completion of the contractual works. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that this is the second round of litigation inasmuch as, on the earlier occasion the Page No.# 3/5 learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 31.03.2023 passed in WP(C) No.2626/2022 directed to carry out the verification and make payment to the petitioner of the entitlement by following the directions contained in the judgment of the learned Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tamsher Ali & Others Vs. State of Assam & Others reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1. However, as the directions passed in the said writ petition being WP(C)No.2626/2022 dated 31.03.2023 had not been considered, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition praying for release of his outstanding dues. 4. The petitioner herein is a registered contractor under the Irrigation Department. The respondent No.4 being the Superintending Engineer, Tezpur Circle (Irrigation) had issued various work orders all dated 25.09.2014 to the petitioner. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had successfully completed the various contractual works allotted to him within the stipulated time and accordingly submitted bills amounting to Rs.15,21,896/-. However, the said amount has not been paid to the petitioner till date. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has made several representations before the respondent authorities for release of the outstanding dues, however, no action has been taken on such representations, for which, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. Mr. N Upadhayay, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Irrigation Department submitted that as to whether the petitioner has supplied Page No.# 4/5 the materials in terms with the work orders in question is a subject matter of 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. 8. 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 supplied the materials in accordance with the work orders mentioned hereinabove and thereupon to ascertain the exact amount to which the Petitioner is entitled to, if any. 9. 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 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 work 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 within 6(six) months from the date a certified copy of this judgment is served upon the respondent No.2. 10. This Court finds it relevant to observe that this is the second round of litigation by the petitioner. Earlier vide an order dated 31.03.2023 passed in WP(C)No.2626/2023, there was a direction to pay by following the mandate of Tamsher Ali (supra). But as the respondents did not do the needful, this Court, therefore, directs that the entire exercise of verification be completed within 6(six) months as directed hereinabove. Page No.# 5/5 11. With above observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant