The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ of mandamus does not issue for enforcement of private rights, and an efficacious alternative remedy must be available for the writ petitioners.

B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. All the aforesaid eight writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order since a common question of law based on identical facts is involved. The question of law is that whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for non-payment of admitted dues by the Government.

2. I have heard Shri M.Devananda, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners at length. The respondents were represented by Mr. A. Modhuchandra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, Mr. Y. Ashang, learned State Govt. Counsel and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Counsel.

3. Since the writ petitions are being decided on the question of maintainability, I do not deem it necessary to narrate the facts of each and every case in detail. In a nutshell, the writ petitioners were awarded different kinds of contract by the respondents. There is also no dispute that the writ petitioners have executed the works as per the contract orders. It is the case of some of the writ petitioners that despite expiry of contractual period for the maintenance of the roads, etc, the respondents have not released their security money. In other sets of writ petitions, it has been averred that despite there being no dispute or controversy about the successful execution of the contract works as well as the amounts of bills, the respondents are not releasing their dues. Hence, the writ petitions have been filed primarily seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the admitted dues. According to Shri A. Madhuchandra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in some of the writ petitions, there is dispute regarding amount of bills. However, I am proceeding to dispose of the writ petitions assuming that the dues are undisputed.

4. Identical question about the maintainability of writ petitions for non-payment of contract amounts came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court and as many as four judgments by different Division Benches were placed before me. The judgments have been rendered in the case of State of Manipur v. Moirangthem Chaoba Singh and Ors. 2006 (1) GLT 19; J. Deep Chemicals & Fertilizers v. State of Tripura and Ors. Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland v. Dimapur Contractors & Suppliers Union and Anr. and Shri P. Jibon Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors. (Disposed of on 30.8.2007).

5. Now, the only question before me is whether any of the aforesaid four judgments have finally decided the question whether writ will be maintainable in the situation of undisputed liability of the State, arising out of concluded contracts. I make it clear that it is a settled proposition of law that no subordinate court or for that matter, a Bench of Single Judge has no authority to review the law laid down by a Division Bench of the High Court.... Not only this, in the interest of judicial discipline, co-ordinate Benches of a High Court should not ordinarily differ from the law laid down by co-ordinate Bench unless a judgment is per incuriam. However, if any necessity is felt, the subsequent Bench should refer the matter to a larger Bench [Government of West Bengal v. Tarun Kumar Roy (2004) ILLJ 421 SC followed].

6. Shri M. Devananda, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that except in the case of J. Deep Chemicals (supra), other judgments have not clearly held that writ petitions will not be maintainable even if there is no dispute about the amounts payable to the writ petitioners. In other words, it was the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in the aforesaid judgment, a law has been clearly laid down in favour of maintainability of the writ petitions. Besides this judgment, the learned Counsel also referred few more judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of the Union of India and Ors. v. M/s Anglo Afghan Agencies etc. AIR 1968 SC 718; M/s Radhakrishna Agarwal and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. [1977] 3 SCR 249 ; ABL Internation