JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. This writ petition, under Section 226 of the Indian Constitution, is preferred by the petitioner-Shri Takam Tatung, for directing the respondent authorities to release his pending bill, amounting to Rs. 75,00,000/- (Seventy five lakhs) only along with the interest thereon.

2. The factual background leading to filing of the present writ petition is adumbrated herein-below:

“The petitioner is the lease holder of a Tourist Lodge situated at Vintage point (6 miles) between Itanagar and Naharlagun road, which belongs to the Department of Tourist Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The said Lodge was smaller in size and not suitable for running a comfortable business. And considering the necessity, the petitioner approached the authority of Tourism Department, for extension of the area of the said Lodge. The Department of Tourism has approved the proposal of the petitioner and thereafter, the he was asked to execute the construction work and directed him to submit the bill after completion. Accordingly, the petitioner has undertaken the construction work and completed the same. And thereafter, the measurement of the work was done by Junior Engineer of the Tourism Department, and after the assessment, an amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lacs) only is approved, vide memo order No. TOU:EW-W-Works 09-2010/25, dated 01.12.2011. But, the respondent authorities neither denied his claim nor paid the amount to him, in spite of several reminders and representation filed by him. Being highly aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.”

3. The respondent authorities’ No. 2 to 5, have filed their affidavit-in-opposition denying the claim made by the petitioner. It is stated that although the Tourist Lodge at Vintage point (6 miles) between Naharlagun and Itanagar was leased out to the petitioner, to run the cafeteria/restaurant therein, yet the Tourism Department did not approved the proposal/application filed by the petitioner at any point of time and at no point of time he was awarded any such work and at no point of time the Department of Tourism directed the petitioner to submit any bill and it has not instructed the petitioner to invest money in any such construction, which was beyond the knowledge of the Department. And it has not issued any direction for extension of the area of Tourist lodge and the so called measurement and assessment claim to have been done by Junior Engineer of the Tourism Department, assessing the amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- ( Seventy five lakhs) only cannot be construed to be an approved pending bill, which is a tentative estimate of expenditure/ investment of proposal of the petitioner. The Department has not directed Junior Engineer, Shri Jalaluddin Ahmed, to take measurement and there is no material to show any such instruction as issued by the Director to the Junior Engineer, and the said work is not reflected or recorded in any Measuring Book, which is available in the Tourism Department, and that absence of any work order in favor of the petitioner, there is no question of approval and allocation of fund, and thereof, from the competent authority under the Tourism Department. And in absence of any supportive documents other than the estimate dated 01.12.2011, which said to have been prepared by the Junior Engineer of the Department, the Case of the petitioner for payment of the pending bill cannot be considered, since payment of such unaccounted bill, without any approval, would cause unnecessary loss to the State Exchequer. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.

4. In his reply to the affidavit-in-opposition, the petitioner has stated that verbal consent was given by the respondent authority to him for construction work of room in the Tourist Lodge at Vintage point (6 miles). Although, no written work order was issued to the petitioner by the respondent authority for extension