Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010234282025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/502/2026 M/S ALAMPURIA ENTERPRISES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI AJAY AGARWALLA, S/O- LATE ONKARMAL AGARWALLA, RESIDENT OF SPANISH GARDEN, BLOCK- C, FLAT NO. 201, RGB ROAD (ZOO ROAD), GUWAHATI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN- 781005. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6, DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782486. 3:THE SECRETARY IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782486. 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION) CHANDMARI GUWAHATI Page No.# 2/4 KAMRUP METRO PIN- 781003. 5:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER INSPECTION (ZONE- IV) KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU ASSAM PIN- 782486. 6:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER DIPHU CIRCLE (IRRIGATION) DIPHU ASSAM PIN- 782486. 7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARBI ANGLONG DIVISION (IRRIGATION) DIPHU ASSAM PIN- 782486 NOW RENAMED AS BAITHALANGSO DIVISION KARBI ANGLONG DIPHU PIN- 782486 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I ALAM, MR. T SK Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION, SC, K A A C BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 19.06.2026 Heard Shri I. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. D.S. Neog, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department as well as Ms. S. Kemprai, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC. 2. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed claiming an amount of Rs. 98,88,761/- on account of contractual dues. It is submitted Page No.# 3/4 that work orders were issued to the petitioner and he had also received running bills amounting to Rs. 3,37,17,334/- and the aforesaid amount of Rs. 98,88,761/- is still pending. 3. Shri Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to certain completion certificates of the work wherein certain amounts are also mentioned. 4. On the other hand, both Ms. Neog and Ms. Kemprai, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department and KAAC, respectively have submitted that in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tamsher Ali & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1, there is a requirement of an admission of the liability in writing by the Chief Engineer/ Head of the Department so as to entertain a writ petition. They have also pointed out that in the certificates relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no date and in any case, those were not issued by the Chief Engineer but by the Executive Engineer. 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 clearly 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 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 Page No.# 4/4 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.” 7. From the materials on record, this Court does not find any acknowledgement of liability in writing as stipulated by the Hon’ble Full Bench in the case of Tamsher Ali (supra) and therefore, the scope of interference will not be there. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 8. The dismissal of this writ petition, however, shall not be an impediment on the part of the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court for redressal of the grievance in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant