JUDGMENT :

1. The instant writ petition has a chequered history of more than a decade when the petitioner has been time and again required to approach this Court for redressal of a grievance which has arisen for certain works done by him in the wake of the Assam Assembly Election of 2011. The petitioner had filed writ petitions in which directions were issued in favour of the petitioner. The writ appeal filed by the Department against such direction was also dismissed and the contempt petition was closed on the basis of certain communications which gave an idea that the grievance of the petitioner would be completely redressed. However, eventually, the same did not lead to complete redressal as a result of which, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. To address the issues, it is necessary to put on record the facts of the case in brief.

3. The petitioner is a registered contractor under the Public Works Department (PWD) Golaghat. In the wake of the State Elections of 2011, a number of works were taken up by the State Government including in respect of LAC No. 93 -Bokakhat with which the present lisis concerned. It is the case of the petitioner that various works relating to repair roads, culverts and bridges leading to various polling stations were allotted to the petitioner for urgent execution. The petitioner had completed all the works allotted within time and this fact is not disputed. In this connection the petitioner has referred to a certificate issued by the Golaghat State Road Division, Bokakhat certifying that 100% of the job was completed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner had raised a bill of Rs.121.929 lacs.

4. Since, the aforesaid amount was not paid, the petitioner was facing grave hardships for which, he had to approach this Court by filing WP(C)/3931/2012. In the said proceedings, it transpires that though the original amount was Rs.121.929 lacs, it was only the estimate which upon calculation was actually found to be Rs.105.421 lacs. Another issue was highlighted by the respondents regarding lack of administrative approval and other formalities. However, the fact of due execution of the work and its completion were admitted. Under those circumstances, this Court vide order dated 14.12.2012 had directed the Department to pass appropriate orders within 31.01.2013.

5. On such remand and in spite of all the discussions on the facts and circumstances and the observations made by this Court, the PWD had passed an order dated 16.01.2013 declining payment of any amount to the petitioner on the ground that the same was executed without maintaining any formalities.

6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had to approach this Court again by filing WP(C)/348/2013. This Court vide order dated 19.02.2013 had interfered with the matter by setting aside the impugned order dated 16.01.2013. The Court specifically observed that in the earlier proceeding, the Department had clearly admitted the fact that the petitioner had completely executed the work in question which was urgent in nature for the ensuing elections and therefore, they were estopped from raising the plea of formality to deny the petitioner from his due entitlement. This Court accordingly, directed the Department to clear the admissible amount to the petitioner preferably within four months.

7. The aforesaid order dated 19.02.2013 was however tested by the Department by preferring a writ appeal before the Hon’ble Division Bench which was registered as WA/97/2013. The Hon’ble Division Bench however was not inclined to accept the submission made to the effect that since the work was done at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner and not the PWD, payments could not be done. The Hon’ble Division Bench vide an order dated 06.05.2013 has held as follows:

"Grievance in this appeal filed by the State of Assam is that work executed by the respondent-writ petitioner for which the payment was being sought was done at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner and