Page No.# 1/ 7 GAHC010122172024 2026:GAU-AS:2005 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/323/2024 MRINAL DAS S/O- SRI DHONIRAM DAS, VILL.- NO. 1 MOHAIJAN, P.O. MOHAIJAN P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR, PIN- 787032. VERSUS JAY SHIVANI AND 2 ORS. COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, PANJABARI, JURIPAR, GUWAHATI- 781037. 2:GAYATRI HYALINGE THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM DISTRICT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR MGNREGA DIST.- LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR PIN- 787001. 3:SEUTY DOLEY THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LAKHIMPUR DEVELOPMENT BLOCK NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST.- LAKHIMPUR PIN- 787001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K NEOG, MR. S K SINGHA Page No.# 2/ 7 Advocate for the Respondent : MR S DUTTA (R-1,2 & 3), MR S DUTTA (R1),MS. N BORAH (R1),MR. K KONWAR (R1) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 10-02-2026 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Singha, learned counsel for the Petitioner; Ms. N. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1; and Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. 2. This contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India is preferred alleging that there is non-compliance of the direction given by this Court in an Order dated 28.02.2024, passed in a writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 1042/2024, which was preferred by the petitioner. 3. In the writ petition, the petitioner had averred that the petitioner had executed two contract-works awarded to the petitioner in respect of two Schemes, namely, [i] Raised Platform at Lohan Gaon near Namghar under MGNREGA 2021-2022 [8Contract-Work no. 19, for short]; and [ii] Earth Filling and Land Development at proposed site of PMAY-G Colony at 0.2 Kalioni under MGNREGA 2021-2022 [8Contract-Work no. 29, for short]. The State respondents did not release his outstanding liabilities amounting to Rs. 28,26,895/- till the date of filing of the writ petition, despite execution of the two contract-works fully by the petitioner. 4. The writ petition came up for consideration on 28.02.2024. The Court took into consideration the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tamsher Ali and others vs. State of Assam and others, 2008 [4] GLT 1, to observe that any contract amount payable would have to be approved/ admitted by the concerned Head of the Department. As the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam was the Head of the Department in respect of the two Schemes/contract-works against which the petitioner had claimed the amount, the Court directed Page No.# 3/ 7 the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam to re-verify the list of pending material bills under the MGNREGA, which was annexed to a Letter dated 09.10.2023 by the concerned Block Development Officer, found annexed to the writ petition, in relation to the petitioner's claim. The Court further directed that if upon verification, it was found that the petitioner was entitled to some outstanding amount, then the admitted liability should be paid by the respondents. The Court directed to complete the entire exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. 5. The petitioner stated that the copy of the Order dated 28.02.2024 was duly submitted to the respondents impleaded herein on 03.05.2024. As the exercise directed by the Order dated 28.02.2024 was not completed within the time period mentioned therein, the petitioner had approached this Court by the present contempt petition. 6. The respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 3 have brought their stands by way of affidavits-in-opposition. The respondent no. 1 in the affidavit-in- opposition, filed on 16.05.2025, has inter-alia stated that the Scheme, 8Earth Filling and Land Development at proposed site of PMAY-G Colony at 0.2 Kalioni under MGNREGA for FY 2021-20229 [Contract-Work no. 2] had been marked as ongoing in MIS without entering material bills. From the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 3, it is discernible that by an Office Order dated 05.08.2025, the respondent no. 1 constituted a team of three officials of State Headquarter to physically verify and ascertain the volume of earth filling done in respect to the Scheme, 8Earth Filling and Land Development at proposed site of PMAY-G Colony at 0.2 Kalioni under MGNREGA for FY 2021-20229 [Contract-Work no. 2]. The team so constituted went for physical verification at the site on 21.08.2025 and submitted an Enquiry Report, which is found annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 3. As per the Enquiry Report, the team after field verification found that the volume of actual earthwork done was 8605.44 cum [cubic meter] which was 86.99% of the compacted volume after considering shrinkage as per the working Page No.# 4/ 7 estimate. It was further observed that a proper site survey and cross- section method of earthwork calculation were not undertaken prior to the preparation of the estimate and the same had led to an overestimation of the project volume in the official documents. Subsequent to submission of the Enquiry Report, the Chief Executive Officer, Lakhimpur Zilla Parishad wrote to the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam vide Office Letter dated 02.09.2025 stating inter-alia that after carrying out technical verification and submission of report, the admissible amount had been assessed at Rs. 9,54,850/-. A statement of payment details made to the petitioner issued under the hand of the respondent no. 3 [Block Development Officer, Lakhimpur Development Block] has been annexed to the said affidavit-in-opposition giving break-up of five bills with their respective bill amount. As per the said statement, out of the five bills, four bills had already been cleared and in so far as the payment with regard to the 5th bill is concerned, the payment was in queue due to technical problem and the same would be solved within a week. 7. The petitioner has, however, disputed the stance taken by the respondents by filing an affidavit-in-reply. According to him, the total bill amount recorded in the MIS on 10.04.2022 in respect to the Scheme under reference was Rs. 25,74,490/-, and the said amount had to be treated as an admitted liability. It has been further averred that out of Rs. 25,74,490/-, an amount of Rs. 7,93,169/- had only been paid by the respondent no. 3. 8. As regards the Scheme named 8Raised Platform at Lohan Gaon near Namghar under MGNREGA 2021-20229 [Contract Work no. 1], the respondents have taken a clear stand that the said Scheme is not a permissible work under the MGNREGA as per para 7.2 of the Annual Master Circular 2021-2022 and as such, no material payment can be made against such non-permissible Scheme. In view of such categorical stand, it is not necessary to delve further into the issue. Page No.# 5/ 7 9. It needs to iterate that the full Bench of this Court in Tamsher Ali [supra] has observed that a writ petition involving contractual liability can be considered only in the event there is admission of liability certified by the respective Chief Engineer in the Works Department and in respect of other departments by the head of the department. 10. In the case in hand, as there was no admission of liability by the Head of the Department, i.e., the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam, in respect of the two contract-works against which the petitioner had claimed the amount against execution, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam to make a verification and upon verification, if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to any outstanding amount then the liability to the extent admitted should be paid. 11. The stand as regards liability taken by the respondent no. 1 is found to the extent of Rs. 9,54,850/-. Ms. Das has placed on record the status of payment details against the Scheme, 8Earth filling land development at Propose site of PMAY-G Colony of No. 2 Kolioni9 [Contract-Work no. 2] under MGNREGA 2021-2022 as under :- Financial year Work Code Name of the Work Bill No. Vendor Name Bill Amount FTO No. 2021-22 0410003005/ LD/ 9010306153 PAYMENT DETAILS OF EARTH FILLING & DEVELOPMENT AT PROPOSED SITE OF PMAY-G COLONY AT NO. 2 KOLIONI 494 MRINAL DAS 199391 041000300SSPAY REQ2811202515 2021-22 0410003005/ LD/ 9010306153 PAYMENT DETAILS OF EARTH FILLING & DEVELOPMENT AT PROPOSED SITE OF PMAY-G COLONY AT NO. 2 KOLIONI 495 MRINAL DAS 197925 041000300SSPAY REQ2811202516 2021-22 0410003005/ LD/ 9010306153 PAYMENT DETAILS OF EARTH FILLING & DEVELOPMENT AT PROPOSED SITE OF PMAY-G COLONY AT NO. 2 KOLIONI 496 MRINAL DAS 197925 041000300SSPAY REQ2811202517 2021-22 0410003005/ LD/ 9010306153 PAYMENT DETAILS OF EARTH FILLING & DEVELOPMENT AT PROPOSED SITE OF PMAY-G COLONY AT NO. 2 KOLIONI 497 MRINAL DAS 197925 041000300SSPAY REQ2811202518 2021-22 0410003005/ LD/ 9010306153 PAYMENT DETAILS OF EARTH FILLING & DEVELOPMENT AT PROPOSED SITE OF PMAY-G 498 MRINAL DAS 161521 041000300SSPAY REQ210120266 Page No.# 6/ 7 COLONY AT NO. 2 KOLIONI Total 954687 12. Relying upon the above statement, Ms. Das has submitted that the entire amount of Rs. 9,54,687/- has already been paid to the petitioner. 13. Mr. Singha has, on the other hand, disputed to the extent that the 5th bill amount shown as Rs. 1,61,521/- has not been received by the petitioner till date. 14. Having regard to the direction made in the Order dated 28.02.2024, this Court after consideration has found that the respondent no. 1 had carried out a verification process to ascertain the extent of work completed against the Scheme, 8Earth filling land development at Propose site of PMAY-G Colony of No. 2 Kolioni9 [Contract-Work no. 2] under MGNREGA 2021-2022 by constituting a team of technical experts and it was on the basis of the Enquiry Report submitted by the team, the liability to the extent of Rs. 9,54,850/- has been found entitled by the petitioner. 15. Taking into consideration the scope and ambit of contempt jurisdiction, which is only limited to the direction made in the Order dated 28.02.2024, this Court is of the considered view that it is not necessary to proceed further in this contempt petition as the respondent no. 1 had carried out the necessary exercise, as directed, albeit with some delay. 16. Taking into consideration the objection made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to non-receipt of the amount of Rs. 1,61,521/- as the final bill, this Court directs that if the amount of Rs. 1,61,521/- has not been released to the petitioner till date, then the respondent no. 1 shall ensure that the said amount is disbursed to the petitioner, within a period of 2 [two] months from today. 17. It is further clarified that if the petitioner has any further claim with regard to the Schemes concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy as permissible under the law before the appropriate forum. Page No.# 7/ 7 18. This order disposes of the contempt petition. 19. The document placed by Ms. Das is kept with the case record by marking it as Document – 8X9. JUDGE Comparing Assistant