Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010233882016 2026:GAU-AS:949 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1401/2016 RUPAI DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION HOUSING COLONY, ROOM NO. 57, NEAR WOKER EDUCATION CENTRE, PARBATIA, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN-786125, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI DILIP KR. SRIVASTAVA. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE COMM. and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY.-06. 2:THE DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT. ASSAM UZANBAZAR GHY.-01. 3:THE DIST. SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER TINSUKIA P.O. P.S. TINSUKIA DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM. 4:THE CHILD DEV. PROJECT OFFICER PANITOLA ICDS PROJECT CHABUA DIBRUGARH. 5:THE SPECIAL OFFICER NUTRITION PROGRAMME Page No.# 2/3 DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL WELFARE ASSAM UZANBAZAR GHY.-01 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A K GUPTA, MS.M KECHII,MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV.,MR. R KALITA,MR. R SALOI,MS. S NEWAR,MS. M K BROWN Advocate for the Respondent : , SC, SOCIAL WELFARE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 28-01-2026 Heard Mr. J. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that in view of the affidavit filed by the respondents disputing the claim, particularly with regard to the issuance of work order, although the principles of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment can be press into service in the present case, the appropriate remedy would lie before the Civil Court. Accordingly, he submits that the writ petition may be disposed of with a liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court. Upon consideration of the pleadings, it is noticed that the petitioner claims to have supplied SNP goods amounting to Rs. 23,16,369.40/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs sixteen thousand three hundred sixty nine and forty paise) only and despite receipt of the said goods, the respondent authorities have failed to make payment of the outstanding bill. It is also projected that the SNP goods were supplied to the Panitola ICDS Project, Chabua in the district of Dibrugarh. Page No.# 3/3 The respondent authorities, by filing affidavit-in-opposition, have taken a categorical stand that the petitioner, i.e. Rupai Development Organisation, Tinsukia, was not selected for procurement of SNP food items for the year 2009- 10 and therefore, there is no question of issuance or execution of any work order in favour of the writ petitioner. The respondent authorities further categorically stated that no work order was issued in the name of the petitioner. Having considered that the claim of the petitioner for payment of Rs. 23,16,369.40/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs sixteen thousand three hundred sixty nine and forty paise) only for supply of SNP items to the Panitola ICDS Project during the year 2009-10 is clearly disputed by the respondent authorities, I am of the considered view that the writ petition would not be maintainable. Therefore, this Court is constrained to hold that no direction can be issued for payment of the claimed amount of Rs. 23,16,369.40/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs sixteen thousand three hundred sixty nine and forty paise) only. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. However, since the petitioner has sought to press into service of the principles of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment, the issues which may be appropriately adjudicated by a competent Civil Court, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court, as may be permissible under the law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant