Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can enforce payment of admitted liabilities, but complex disputes regarding compliance and funding necessitate further verification before any payment can be mandated.

JUDGMENT :

PRANJAL DAS, J.

The petitioner is Ms. Hongkam Construction, stated to be a Govt. Regd. Contractor and supplier. Five respondents had been impleaded in the writ petition, out of which respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are State respondents of Nagaland Government and respondent No. 5 is the Union of India represented by Secretary, Ministry of Tourism. The petitioner has come before this Court with a grievance that pursuant to work order dated 21.12.2013, he has executed works on behalf of Government of Nagaland, Department of Tourism in a Centrally funded scheme and though he has secured a part payment of Rs.11,11,263/- by way of a running bill with regard to the said works; he is yet to receive the remaining amount of Rs. 29,311,737/- out of a total bill of Rs. 40.43 Lakhs, with regard to the said work. Aggrieved by the same, he has filed this writ petition seeking a direction for payment of the remaining amount out of a total bill of Rs. 29,31,737/-.

2. The facts in a little more detail as contended by the writ petitioner are that the Tourism Department of Nagaland Government had approved a project for a construction of integrated Tourist Destination at Angphang and accordingly government approval was accorded vide No. TRSM (C)- 5/66/2010 dated 20.12.2013, which was conveyed to the Tourism Directorate of the State. It is further contended that pursuant thereof, the Additional Director Tourism issued work order No. TOUR/ENGG-628/213- 14 dated 21.12.2013 awarding the work for construction of the Integrated Tourist Destination at Angphang (SH:Construction of Budget Accommodation Part-1) to the present writ petitioner for an amount of Rs. 40.43 Lakhs and the construction work was to be completed within 18 months; that, subsequently vide Authorization dated 04.03.2014, the proprietor of the petitioner firm authorized the manager who is Wanmei Konyak representing present writ petitioner to commence and execute the work and also authorized him to represent the firm before the government, including receiving of all bills etc. The aforesaid letter dated 21.12.2013 of Additional Director Tourism has been annexed as Annexure- A and the construction firm authorization letter dated 04.03.2012 is marked as Annexure-B. It is further contended by the writ petitioner that the firm completed the work within the stipulated time and as per specification and to this effect the Sub-divisional Officer (Civil), Angjangyang issued verification report vide letter No. GA/ANGJ/DEV- 7/2017-18 stating that the work was completed satisfactorily. The said verification report is stated to be dated 19.04.2021 and annexed as Annexure-C. It is stated that a part bill of Rs. 11,11,263/- were released to the petitioner in May, 2014 out of final bill of Rs. 40.43 Lakhs. It is contended that despite completion of the work and passage of several years, the remaining bill amount has not been paid to the petitioner, due to which the petitioner filed an RTI application, which was replied to vide letter dated 29.05.2023 bearing No. TOUR/ENGG/RTI/2022-2023/006. It is contended that the RTI replied fairly indicated that the amount of Rs.11,11,263/- was released in May, 2014 and in this regard the petitioner contends that therefore the outstanding total amount of Rs. 40.43 Lakhs is an admitted liability of the respondents. The writ petitioner further states that, several requests for payment of remaining bill was made without success and eventually he submitted the representation dated 24.08.2023 to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for the remaining payment.

3. Copy of the RTI reply dated 29.05.2023 is annex