Mandamus cannot compel payment unless entitlement is established; the court directed verification of claims amid disputes over contract execution.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent Authorities to make payment of an amount of Rs.4,59,01,594.92p to the petitioner through the RA bill in respect of the works already completed.

3. The case of the petitioner as could be seen from the materials on record is that the respondent Lakhipur Town Committee had entered into a contract with the petitioner for construction of four numbers of town roads including RCC Culverts and Pucca Drainage at Lakhipur Town under NLCPR for the year 2012-13 at a total contractual consideration of Rs.14,16,33,444/-.

4. Pursuant to entering into the contract, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had completed 95% of the work. However, inspite of the bills being submitted from time to time, the petitioner’s bill amounts have not been released since October, 2020 to the tune of Rs.4,59,01,594.92p. In that regard, the petitioner had also submitted a representation on 29.01.2022. However, as the said representation remained unconsidered, the petitioner had therefore approached this Court by filing the writ petition.

5. It is seen that the respondent Lakhipur Town Committee had filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is categorically stated that the project in question was supposed to be completed within 18 months and the contractor was handed over the site on 15.05.2015. But the contractor delayed in starting the work. It is further mentioned that the Executive Officer, Lakhipur Town Committee had issued letters to the contractor for providing an explanation in delaying to start the work after the site was handed over to the contractor. Further to that, it is mentioned that the contractor only started the work on 08.10.2015. It is also alleged in the said affidavit-in-opposition that there was slow progress of the work by the contractor for which various notices were issued to speed up the work.

6. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, there is also allegation that the work done by the petitioner was of poor quality and notices were issued to the petitioner for rectifying six faults with earth filling, sand gravel, blacktopping. It is also alleged that the petitioner had been granted 10 extensions from time to time and the last extension expired on 31.10.2022. It is also stated more particularly at paragraph No.3(i) that the petitioner had only completed 84% of the project work and the claim which the petitioner has made exceeds even the estimated value.

7. Pursuant to the filing of the affidavit-in-opposition, the petitioner had also filed an affidavit-in-reply wherein the petitioner admitted that the work in question could not be completed, but the reason for non-completion was on account of the fault of the respondent Lakhipur Town Committee.

8. This Court, on the basis of the pleadings has also heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

9. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had carried out the work to the extent of 95%, and as such, the petitioner is entitled to the amount as claimed to the tune of Rs.4,59,01,594.92p which the Respondent Authorities have not paid. He further submitted that the stand so taken now by the Lakhipu