Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010148082026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3884/2026 DOLPHIN SECURITY AND ADVERTISING REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI HEMENDRA NATH DEKA, HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT KAMAKHYA TEMPLE ROAD, GUWAHATI- 781009. 2: SRI HEMENDRA NATH DEKA PROPRIETOR OF DOLPHIN SECURITY ADVERTISING AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS SON OF LATE U C DEKA RESIDENT OF DWARKA ENCLAVE MALIGAON GUWAHATI781011 AMRUP METRO ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANJABARI, KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI, PIN-781037. 2:THE DIRECTOR GOLAP BORBORA STATE INSTITUTE OF PANCHAYAT RURAL DEVELOPMENT GBSIPRD FORMERLY STATE INSTITUTE OF PANCHAYAT RURAL DEVELOPMENT. G.S. ROAD KHANAPARA GUWAHATI781022 3:THE JOINT DIRECTOR ADMIN GOLAP BORBORA STATE INSTITUTE OF PANCHAYAT RURAL DEVELOPMENT GBSIPRD FORMERLY STATE INSTITUTE OF PANCHAYAT RURAL DEVELOPMENT. G.S. ROAD Page No.# 2/3 KHANAPARA GUWAHATI78102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHOUDHURY, MR. AMIT GOYAL Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 27.07.2026 Heard Shri A. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioners, who by means of this application is seeking a direction for release of contractual dues for providing security services. It is submitted that out of the total bills submitted, an amount has already been paid and there is a balance of Rs.82,19,204/- (Rupees Eighty-Two Lakh Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred Four) only. 2. The scope of adjudication by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter pertaining to claim for contractual dues is limited as those involve disputed questions of facts. However, the Hon’ble Full Bench in the aforesaid case of Tamsher Ali vs. State of Assam reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1has 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. Page No.# 3/3 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 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.” 3. Prima facie, there is no acknowledgement of the liability in writing by the Head of the Department which is one of the requirement of entertaining a writ petition as laid down by the Hon’ble Full Bench in the case of Tamsher Ali (supra) 4. Shri Goyal, the learned counsel has submitted that there is no rejection of the bills till now. However, this Court is of the opinion that unless a litigant fulfils the requirement laid down by the Hon’ble Full Bench, a writ petition is not entertainable. 5. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 6. Dismissal of the writ petition shall not be a bar for the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of the grievance which, if done will be adjudicated on its own merits. JUDGE Comparing Assistant