Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010144022026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3783/2026 M/S KAUSHIK ENTERPRISE AND ANR A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRICHANDAN KAUSHIK REGISTERED OFFICE AT NEAR BANGIYA BIDDYALAY, HEM NAGAR, DURGABARI, TINSUKIA, PIN-786125, ASSAM.PHONE 9435035004 2: SHRI CHANDAN KAUSHIK SON OF LATE P. C. PROPRIETOR M/S. KAUSHIK ENTERPRISE REGISTERED OFFICE AT NEAR BANGIYA BIDDYALAY HEM NAGAR DURGABARI TINSUKIA PIN-786125 ASSAM.PHONE 943503500 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, POWER DEPARTMENT,J BLOCK, LOK SEWA BHAWAN, JANATA BHAWAN, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 Page No.# 2/4 4:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (RURAL ELECTRIFICATION) ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TINSUKIA ELECTRICAL CIRCLE (UPPER ASSAM REGION) ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED TINSUKIA HAVING ITS OFFICE AT OFFICE OF THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER SADIYA ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION SADIYA TINSUKIA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. H. BURAGOHAIN, MS. H BORAH,MS A DEVI,M BURAGOHAIN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 31.07.2026 Heard Shri H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri KP Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with a claim for release of contractual bills of Rs.5,01,851.67. It is the case of the petitioners that they are licensed electrical contractors, who were entrusted with a work vide Letter of Award dated 30.11.2021 for carrying out the Village Electrification Infrastructure (VEI) works under the Package-8 of the “Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gram Jyoti Yojna” in the district of Tinsukia. The petitioners have also claimed to have successfully completed the work and there is a work completion certificate, in spite of which, the dues have not been cleared. Page No.# 3/4 3. On the other hand, Shri Pathak, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioners have not fulfilled 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 also submitted that there is an arbitration clause. 4. On the aforesaid issue, the learned counsel for the petitioner was granted time on the previous occasion. 5. The petitioners, though have enclosed a completion certificate, 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, the principles of which have been endorsed by the Hon’ble Full Bench in the aforesaid case of Tamsher Ali (supra). 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 Page No.# 4/4 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.” 6. In the instant case, there is no acknowledgement of the liability in writing by the Head of the Department / Chief Engineer which is one of the essential requirements. The availability of an arbitration clause would also come into the way of entertaining the writ petition. 7. Under those conditions, the instant writ petition held to be non- maintainable and accordingly, the same is closed. 8. Closure of the writ petition shall not be a bar for the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of the grievance, if permitted by law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant