Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010152182026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3894/2026 NABAJYOTI BARUAH SON OF DR. HOMESWAR BARUAH, B. M. ROAD, AMALAPATTY, NAGAON, ASSAM, 782001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006. 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BASISTHA ASSAM WATER CENTRE GUWAHATI-29. 3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER NAGAON WATER RESOURCES DIVISION NAGAON PIN-782001 4:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NAGAON WATER RESOURCES DIVISION NAGAON PIN-782001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S S S RAHMAN, MR. S S A RAHMAN,MR. M R SODIAL Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, WATER RESOURCE Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 29.07.2026 Heard Shri SSS Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner, who by means of this writ petition has prayed for a direction for release of contractual dues. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was entrusted with the various works by the Water Resource Department, Nagaon Division. However, there is an outstanding amount of Rs.3,92,175/-. The learned counsel has relied upon a reply obtained under the RTI Act dated 02.11.2021 along with which a liability statement has been enclosed. 3. Shri RM Das, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department has however submitted that the liability statement sought to be relied upon by the petitioner is not in accordance with the requirements laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tamsher Ali & Ors. -Vs- State of Assam and Others, reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1. He has submitted that even otherwise the works are of the year 2014 and delayed approach of the petitioner to this Court itself would disentitle the petitioner to the equitable relief exercises under writ jurisdiction. 4. 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 (supra) has 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 Page No.# 3/4 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 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.” 5. It is seen that the liability statement which has been obtained under the RTI Act is not issued by the designated authority i.e. Chief Engineer as provided by the Hon’ble Full Bench in the aforesaid case of Tamsher Ali (supra). This Page No.# 4/4 Court has also noticed that the works are of the year 2014 and the discussions made in the said case would clearly show that matter of this nature is not entertainable by a Writ Court which exercises equitable jurisdiction. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 7. Dismissal of the writ petition shall not be a bar for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of the grievance, if permitted by law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant