JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. I. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department for all the respondents.

2. By seeking to invoke the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition seeking inter alia a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent authorities to release an amount of Rs. 85,82,320/-with interest @ 7% forthwith on the contention that the said amount is an admitted contractual liability in respect of a contract-work executed by the petitioner for the respondent Irrigation Department, Assam.

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

3.1. It has been stated that the petitioner who is a registered Class-I Contractor with the respondent Irrigation Department, was awarded with a contract work : ‘Approach road of Parbatia Flow Irrigation Scheme [F.I.S.] under the Accelerated Benefited Programme [A.I.B.P.] Scheme, 2009-2010, Nalbari Division, Nalbari’ [‘the Contract-Work’, for short] vide a Work Order no. DDMI/T/30/2010/Pt-III/65 dated 07.09.2010. A copy of the Work Order dated 07.09.2010 is, however, not made part of the writ petition.

3.2. It is the case of the petitioner that after receipt of the Work Order dated 07.09.2010, he proceeded to execute the Contract-Work w.e.f. 09.02.2011 and completed 95% of the work on 01.12.2012. According to a petitioner, the remaining 5% of the Contract-Work was related to an approach road. The petitioner has asserted that he had subsequently completed the said 5% of the work pertaining to the approach road also. The petitioner has stated that he submitted Running Account [RA] bills to the extent of Rs. 2,97,00,539/-and the respondent authorities had paid him an amount of Rs. 1,09,36,170 out of the total RA bills amount of Rs. 2,97,00,539/-. Thus, an amount of Rs. 1,87,64,369/-remained to be paid by the respondent authorities.

3.3. Aggrieved by non-disbursal of the said amount of Rs. 1,87,64,369/-against the Contract-Work pertaining the Parbatia F.I.S. under the A.I.B.P. Scheme, the petitioner approached this Court earlier by a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7114/2013. When the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7114/2013 came up for consideration on 07.02.2014, it was submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department that the claim of the petitioner would be verified by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department and upon verification, if any amount was found due to be payable, the same would be paid following the guidelines formulated in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Tamsher Ali and others vs. the State of Assam and others, reported in 2008 [4] GLT 1. The writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7114/2013 was accordingly, disposed of by an Order dated 07.02.2014.

3.4. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred another writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1373/2014 claiming that an amount of Rs. 1,86,55,647/-was admittedly due from the respondent authorities in the Irrigation Department against the Contract-Work. When the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1373/2014 listed on 31.03.2014 for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department submitted that the matter would require thorough investigation by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Assam. The writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1373/2014 was disposed of, by an Order dated 31.03.2014, by providing that the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department shall examine the case of the petitioner, taking note of all the attending facts and circumstances and in accordance with law and also following the directions formulated in the decision in Tamsher Ali [supra]. It was observed that the required exercise be carried out as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 4 [four] months.

3.5. Alleging non-compliance of the directions made in the Order dated 31.03.2014 passed in the writ pet