Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010252572025 2026:GAU-AS:6785 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6659/2025 M/S UCN CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT R. K PATH, ITACHALI, NAGAON, ASSAM- 782001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIYUSH KUMAR NAHATA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O SRI MANAK CHAND NAHATA, RESIDENT OF R.K. PATH, ITACHALI, PIN- 782003. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, P.O - ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (BUILDING) CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003 DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PW (B AND NH) DEPARTMENT JORHAT DISTRICT TERRITORIAL BUILDING DIVISION JORHAT. 4:THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF PRINTING AND STATIONARY ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-21. Page No.# 2/4 5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. HR Das Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. B Gogoi Addl. AG, Assam B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 15.05.2026 Heard Mr. HR Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Gogoi, the learned Addl.AG, Assam appearing on behalf of the PWD, Assam. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondent Authorities in not making payment of the outstanding Bill amount of Rs.30,47,061/- to the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that pursuant to an Invitation for Bid (IFB) dated 12.05.2014 issued by the respondent No.2, the petitioner participated in the said tender process and on being emerged as successful bidder, Notice to Proceed with the Work dated 25.07.2014 was issued in his favour for ‘Construction of Branch of Assam Government Press at Titabor’. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that though the initial tender value for the said construction work had been fixed at Rs.3,54,25,650/-, but subsequently the tender value was enhanced to Rs.3,79,91,128/- as agreed upon by and Page No.# 3/4 between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 vide agreement dated 19.10.2022. It is the case of the petitioner that up till 2017 the petitioner company could complete only 27.89% of the work due to very bad condition of the approach road and thereafter the petitioner could not complete the work. The approach road was, thereafter, constructed by the authorities in the year 2024, after receipt of due fund of about Rs.80,00,000.00/-. Thereafter vide letter dated 11.09.2024, the petitioner was asked to complete the work. The petitioner vide representation dated 10.09.2025 intimated the respondent authorities that the petitioner company would not be able to complete the construction work at the rate fixed in the year 2014 due to increase in the cost of raw materials and labourers. It was further informed that the validity of the sanction of the project has already been expired and the concerned Head of Account being non-existent in the meantime, the petitioner requested the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay the balance admitted amount of Rs.30,47,061/- and to finalise the work and take over the contract site. It is the case of the petitioner that out of the total bill amount of Rs.1,10,92,963/- the petitioner had been made a part-payment of Rs.61,75,702/- and an amount of Rs.30,47,061/- is still pending for disbursal with the respondent authorities. 5. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 10.09.2025 before the respondent authorities for release of the aforesaid outstanding dues, but the same has not yielded any result. Consequently, finding no other alternatives, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition seeking a direction for release of the outstanding bill amount. 6. Mr. B Gogoi, the learned Addl. AG, Assam appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that as to whether the petitioner has executed the contruction work in question is a subject matter of verification which needs to Page No.# 4/4 be carried out by the respondent authorities and it is only on the basis of such verification, the actual entitlement of the petitioner could be ascertained. 7. Upon hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met if a direction is given to the respondent authorities to verify as to whether the petitioner has executed the contract work in accordance with the work order mentioned hereinabove and thereupon to ascertain the amount to which the petitioner is entitled to. 8. It is under such circumstances, this Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition thereby directing the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent No. 2 to verify the entitlement of the petitioner on the basis of the work order which were issued in favour of the petitioner and as to whether the petitioner has successfully executed the contructed work in question and thereupon, after verification, if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to any amount, the same should be paid to the petitioner in terms with the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tamsher Ali and Others Vs. State of Assam and others reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1. The said verification be completed within a period of 1 (one) month from the date a certified copy of the instant order is served upon the respondent No.2 i.e. the Chief Engineer, PWD (Building), Guwahati and the payment thereupon be made in terms with the judgment rendered in the case of Tamsher Ali (supra). 9. With above observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant