THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Dinamoni Haloi, S/o. Sri Rajendra Nath Haloi – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented by the secretary to the government of
Assam, And Ors. – Respondent
WP(C) 1675 of 2025
Decided On : 27-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims unpaid work amount. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner states hardship due to non-payment. (Para 3) |
| 3. respondents acknowledge outstanding amount. (Para 4) |
| 4. court orders payment of admitted amount. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the non-payment of the admitted amount of Rs.10,08,000/- by the Respondent Authorities to the petitioner for the works executed by the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner has been allotted the works vide work orders dated 17.06.2015, 02.05.2015 and 07.02.2018 issued by the respondent No.2. The total value of the allotted works was Rs. 1,36,52,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioner completed the allotted works. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter Respondent Authorities inspected and verified the works and issued the completion certificate on 08.08.2018 against the works executed by the petitioner. The petitioner was paid Rs. 1,26,44,000/- out of total bill amount of Rs. 1,36,52,000/- wherein Rs. 10,08,000/- remained outstanding which is due to be paid to the petitioner. But no action has been taken by the Respondent Authorities to release the outstanding bill amount of Rs. 10,08,000/- to the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been pursuing the matter diligently with the respondents, but the Respondent Authorities have not shown any interest in making the payment of the admitted amount of Rs. 10,08,000/- due to the petitioner for which the petitioner is facing hardship. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Respondent Authorities have failed to discharge their duty in accordance with law and the same has caused prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
4. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent No.4, i.e. the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Assam, Khanapara wherein it is stated that there is a liability of Rs.15,62,447.93 against Paschim Sarukhetri GPSS Ltd. In Barpeta District and all other liabilities with respect to the godowns of Dakshim Dharmapur and Natum Dehar Mouza BSS Ltd. under Nalbari District, Barshilajhar SS Ltd., Dakua SS Ltd. & Sekhar SS Ltd under Udalguri District has been met up and hence the concerned amounts are already released to HOUSEFED. It is further stated in the said affidavit-in-opposition that the amount would be released to the petitioner upon approval of sanction from the sanctioning authority as well as allotment of funds required from the Government.
5. Upon perusal of the materials on record, and more particularly the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.4, it would be seen that the Respondents therefore admit that the petitioner is entitled to the amount of Rs. 10,08,000/-. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following observations and directions:-
i) The petitioner is entitled to the amount of Rs. 10,08,000/- as admitted by the Respondents.
ii) The said amount of Rs. 10,08,000/- be paid to the petitioner after making such statutory deductions, if so required, within a period of 6 (six) months from the date, a certified copy of 4, i.e. .e. the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Assam, Khanapara.
(iii) Any amount so paid during the pendency of the present writ petition towards the dues of the petitioner shall be set off while making payment to the petitioner.
The court affirmed that governments must promptly fulfill admitted financial obligations, emphasizing the legal duty to ensure timely payments to entitled parties.
The court upheld the contractor's right to receive due payments for completed works, emphasizing the necessity for timely payment as acknowledged by the Respondents under Article 226.
Verification of work completion is essential before payment can be issued under Article 226, ensuring entitlement to dues is accurately determined.
Writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for adjudicating disputed questions of fact, particularly in contractual matters involving claims for payment where the completion of work and validity ....
Contractual compliance verification is essential for ensuring timely payment to contractors, as established in Article 226 of the Constitution.
Point of Law : Respondents have made the petitioner to execute the work out of his own funds, it is their bounden duty to reimburse the petitioner at the earliest, that too with interest.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.