Point of Law : 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 respective Head of the Departments.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondent no. 1; Mr. N.K. Deb Nath, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 5; and Ms. R.B. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Bodoland Territorial Council [BTC] for the respondent nos. 4, 6, 7, 8 & 9.

2. By invoking the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of India, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition seeking inter alia a direction to the respondent authorities to release an amount of Rs. 96,03,111 which, according to the petitioner, is an outstanding liability against the supply orders executed by him for the respondent authorities in the BTC under various scheme of the MGNREGA during the years: 2014-2015 and 2015- 2016.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a registered contractor dealing in sand, gravel, stone and other materials. The petitioner has claimed that the respondent no. 9 had issued a number of supply orders on 06.07.2015, 08.07.2015, 02.11.2015, 06.11.2015, 02.01.2016 and 13.01.2016 in its favour and thereby, asked the petitioner to supply materials of different kinds in respect of a total 66 nos. of schemes under the MGNREGA. According to the petitioner, the total value of the entire supply orders was Rs. 1,10,00,800.20. In all the supply orders, the respondent no. 9 mentioned that the supply of materials should be completed within the stipulated period of time mentioned therein in the respective supply orders and the payment would be made through Fund Transfer Orders [F.T.Os], subject to availability of fund from the Government under the MGNREGA materials for the year 2015-2016. The petitioner was asked to submit his bills in duplicate at the office of the respondent no. 9 along with the respective receipt copy of materials from the concerned Junior Engineer [J.E.]/ Accredited Engineer [A.E.] for payment. It is the further case of the petitioner that upon receipt of supply orders issued by the respondent no. 9 from time to time, he had supplied all the materials as per the supply orders to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities and after completion of the supplies, the petitioner had submitted the final bills in duplicate in respect of 62 nos. of schemes to the respondent no. 9 along with the receipt copies of materials collected from the concerned Junior Engineer [J.E.]/Accredited Engineer [A.E.]. Thereafter on 19.07.2016, the respondent no. 9 wrote to the respondent no. 8 regarding generation of FTOs in connection with supply of materials made by the petitioner under the MGNREGA for the years : 2014 - 2015 and 2015 - 2016. By the said letter, the respondent no. 9 intimated the respondent no. 8 that the payment should be made as per the availability of fund released from the end of the Government. In a statement enclosed with the letter dated 19.07.2016, the respondent no. 9 had mentioned the respective FTO number and the respective amount required to be released in favour of the petitioner against 62 nos. of schemes. The petitioner has averred that the respondent authorities had made payment in respect of 4 [four] nos. of schemes out of those 62 nos. of schemes by crediting an amount of Rs. 8,96,824.20, in the account of the petitioner claiming that an amount of Rs. 96,03,111 is still to be released by the respondent authorities in the BTC in respect of the remaining 58 nos. of schemes, under the MGNREGA. The petitioner with the above grievance, has approached this Court seeking the direction, mentioned above. In order to buttress his claim, the petitioner has made mention of a letter dated 22.11.2017 issued by the respondent no. 3 whereby an amount of Rs. 28,25,000/- was allocated to Debitola Development Block, the Development Block where the petitioner made the supplies in terms of the supply orders.

4. The responde