Writ jurisdiction is unsuitable for adjudicating disputed questions of fact requiring evidence. Where a party pursues a remedy in a wrong forum in good faith, the court may exclude the time spent in such proceedings from the limitation period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. S. K. Saha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Ms. N. Borah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the P&RD Department.

2. Taking into account that the issues involved in the three writ petitions are similar, the said writ petitions are taken up for disposal by this common judgment and order.

3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the present three writ petitions are narrated herein under:-

WP(C) No.5296/2020

4. The Petitioner herein claims that the Petitioner was selected and approved for supply of various materials under the scheme MGNREGA for Pub-Mangaldai Block in the district of Darrang, Assam. The Petitioner further claims that he had supplied the required materials as per the scheme and under the Supply Order No. DRDA-Darrang/Supply Order No.:-Pub-Mangaldai- DRDA/MLD /67/2015-16/2670 dated 12.01.2016. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner submitted the total bills for the supply of materials of an amount of Rs.18,69,300/- during the period 2015-16 and Rs.28,97,415/- for the period from 2016-17 totalling to an amount of Rs.47,66,715/-. It is the further case of the Petitioner that an amount of Rs.37,92,090/- was released to the Petitioner and there was an outstanding amount of Rs.9,74,625/-. The said amount having not been paid, the present writ petition has been filed.

WP(C) No.5388/2023

5. In the instant case, the Petitioner herein also claims that he had supplied various materials pursuant to the Supply Order No.DRDA, Darrang Supply Order No. Sipajhar-DRDA/MLD/67/2015-16/2872 dated 12.01.2016. The total amount for supply of the materials for the period 2015-16 was Rs.22,52,926/- and for the period 2016-17 was Rs.5,31,495/- totalling to Rs.27,84,420/-. It is the further case of the Petitioner that an amount of Rs.19,52,237/- had been released and thereby there was an outstanding of Rs.8,32,183/-. On account of the non-release of the outstanding amount, the instant writ petition had been filed.

WP(C) No.5453/2020

6. In the instant writ petition, it is also the case of the Petitioner that in pursuance to a Supply Order No.DRDA, Darrang Supply Order No. Pachim- Mangaldai-DRDA/MLD/67/2015-16/267 dated 12.01.2016, the Petitioner supplied the materials during the period 2015-16 of an amount of Rs.19,80,900/- and during the period 2016-17, the Petitioner supplied materials of a value of Rs.18,83,250/- totalling to Rs.38,64,150/-. It is the case of the Petitioner that an amount of Rs.34,93,021/- had been paid/released to the Petitioner thereby an outstanding of Rs.3,71,129/- was remained outstanding. On account of the non- payment of the aforementioned amount, the instant writ petition was filed.

7. This Court has also taken note of that pursuant to issuance of notice, the P&RD Department has filed a common affidavit-in- opposition wherein it is categorically mentioned at paragraph No.4 that after due verification it was found that there was no such material bills shown in the MIS (Management Information System), and therefore, there was no outstanding bill to be paid in the name of the Petitioner. Paragraph No.4 of the said affidavit-in-opposition filed in WP(C) No.5296/2020 being relevant is reproduced herein under:-

“4.That the deponent herein submits that as regards to the claim of the petitioner regarding the non-payment of bills is not true as per the letter No. SDB/Esstt-71/2020-21/ dated 16.06.2025, letter No. PMDB/Estt-43/Pt-II/2018-19/698 dated 13.08.2025 and letter No. PMDB/RD/MGNREGA/8/Pt-III/Gen/2025-25/599 dated 11.08.2025 issued by the BDOs of the Sipajhar Development Block