JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Public Works Department (PWD) for the respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5; Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department for the respondent no. 2 and Mr. R. Talukdar, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 3.

2. The petitioner has instituted the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking inter-alia a direction to the respondent authorities to release an amount of Rs. 39,60,520.00, which amount, according to the petitioner, has remained outstanding to be payable to him against a contract-work executed by him on behalf of the respondent authorities.

3. The background facts leading to institution of the instant writ petition can be narrated, in brief, as follows.

4. Pursuant to a tender process initiated for a contract-work “Restoration of flood damages to Karchowabori Goroimari Road under SDRF for the year 2013-14 (under Jagiroad LAC)” (‘the Contract-Work’ for short) with the publication of a notice inviting tender, the petitioner participated in the same by submitting his bid. The petitioner offered a bid value of Rs. 2,07,66,479.93 against the Contract-Work and upon the petitioner having emerged as the successful bidder (L-1), the respondent no. 4 issued a notice to the petitioner to proceed with the Contract-Work vide a letter bearing Memo no. CE/Commn/45/2014-15 dated 07.03.2015. The said notice mentioned that the petitioner submitted the requisite security as stipulated in the Instructions to Bidders (ITB) and the petitioner was instructed to proceed with the execution of the Contract-Work in accordance with the contract documents. A Contract-Agreement for the Contract-Work was executed between the respondent no. 4 and the petitioner for a Contract-Price of Rs. 2,07,66,479.93 vide Contract-Agreement no. CE(R)/Commn/SDRF/2014-15/3 dated 07.03.2015. According to the petitioner, he proceeded to execute the Contract-Work as per the work order and completed the same to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities. After completion of the Contract-Work on 25.12.2016, the respondent no. 3 visited the site of the Contract- Work on 19.12.2017 and submitted a completion report in respect of the Contract-Work stating that the Contract-Work stood completed to the extent of 100% as per the plans and estimates. The quality of the Contract-Work was certified to be satisfactory. The respondent no. 3 had, thereafter, forwarded the completion report to the respondent no. 2 vide his forwarding letter bearing no. MRR(MD) 3/2012/PT-IV/71 dated 20.12.2017. The final bills for an amount of Rs. 2,47,00,000.00 against the Contract-Work was submitted by the petitioner. In course of time, an amount of Rs. 2,07,39,480.00 was released in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition to the effect that he had executed the Contract-Work to the worth of Rs. 2,47,12,659.00. But, he was paid only an amount of Rs. 2,07,66,480.00 against FOC no. RGR.446/2014/187 dated 12.06.2017 till date, thus, leaving an amount of Rs. 39,60,520.00 as outstanding till date. It is the case of the petitioner that the fact that an amount of Rs. 39,46,179.00 has remained payable as outstanding to the petitioner against the Contract-Work has been endorsed by the respondent no. 5 in his letter bearing no. MRRD/TB/SDRF/2013/14/1794 dated 13.12.2016.

5. The petitioner stated to have approached the respondent authorities by a number of representations including one representation dated 29.01.2018 before the respondent no. 2, requesting for release of the balance amount of Rs. 39,60,520.00 but there was no affirmative action on the part of the respondent authorities towards releasing any balance amount, not to speak of the amount Rs. 39,60,520.00 claimed by him to be admitted outstanding dues.

6. When the respondent authoritie