Heard Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. NC Phukan, learned counsel for State-respondents.

2. The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that three items of work as stated in para 3 of the writ petition has been allotted to him in the year, 1999, by the Executive Engineer, (PWD (Roads) NK Division, Nalbari. The petitioner a contends that the aforesaid three works were duly executed by him within the time prescribed and that on the basis of the measurement of the work undertaken by the authorities, final bills were prepared and submitted by the petitioner for payment of the dues on account of the aforesaid works. According to the petitioner, total amount due to him is Rs. 3,42,087.00 out of the which the respondents have paid Rs. 56,000.00 leaving a balance amount of Rs. 2,86,037.00. The further case of the petitioner is that though the aforesaid amount was due to him for long time and in spite several representations submitted to the authorities for early payment of the aforesaid amount, payment have not been made compelling the petitioner to approach this Court by way of this writ petition. The writ petitioner has annexed to the writ petition a copy of the letter dated 7.6.2000 written by the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), NK Division, Nalbari to the c Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) Assam, Chandmari Guwahati 3, would go to show that the aforesaid Executive Engineer has requested the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) Assam for allocation of fund of Rs.2,87,037.00 as per enclosed proforma for payment to the petitioner.

3. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that when the amount claimed by the petitioner has not been disputed by the respondents as would be evidence from the communication annexed to the writ petition, this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution should direct the respondent authorities to make the aforesaid payment.

4. The State-respondents have filed an affidavit on 6.11.2000 in para 2 of the aforesaid affidavit, it is contended that the claim of the petitioner for payment having been arisen out of the term of a non statutory contract, the aforesaid claim should be adjudicated by the civil Court and not by this writ Court. However, in paragraphs 6,8 and 9 of the affidavit, the State respondents have unambiguously stated that the amount claimed by the petitioner is due but the same could not be paid due to paucity of funds. There is no dispute regarding execution of the aforesaid work by the petitioner and the entitlement of the petitioner to receive payment for such execution of works, as claimed. In a situation where the State-respondents have admitted that the amount is due to the petitioner, it would not be necessary for this Court to relegate the parties to the civil Court in view of the absence of any dispute on facts. Cases where entitlement to a particular sum of money on account of contract works performed is not disputed by the State authorities, the writ power would always be available to the citizens for the just redressal of their grievances.

5. Considering the above and also keeping in mind, the lack of funds as pleaded by the State-respondents, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the State-respondents will settle the outstanding dues of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 2,87,037 within a period of six months from today. It will be open for the State-respondents to settle the aforesaid outstanding dues in installments which should however not exceed four in number.

6. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document