Government authorities are obligated to process and release contractual payments for public works upon verifying that the work was successfully executed in accordance with plans and all necessary documentation has been submitted.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. B. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. P. Sarma, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. I have also heard Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.7.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the non-payment of the contractual bill amounting to Rs. 16,81,695/- for the work awarded to him pursuant to an NIT issued by the respondent authorities, namely, “Excavation of KUR No. 2 at Beria Beel in the district of Barpeta, Pkg. No. 16-‘B’, under the scheme ‘Creation of Capital Assets by Development of Beel Fisheries of AFDCL Ltd. under SOPD-ODS for the year 2019–20’.”

3. It is the case of the petitioner that, due to natural calamities, he could not complete the work within the stipulated time and, therefore, approached the authorities seeking a general extension of time. Accordingly, the respondent authorities, more particularly respondent No. 4, vide order dated 09.06.2022, granted a general extension up to 31.12.2022 for completion of the work.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that although the general extension was granted up to 31.12.2022, he completed the work on 01.03.2023. Thereafter, the Circle Officer, Barpeta Revenue Circle, inspected the work executed by the petitioner and, vide verification report dated 16.03.2023, intimated the same to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Fishery) with the remark “Works completed.” Subsequently, a Civil Work Completion Certificate was also issued in favour of the petitioner, reflecting the bill value upon completion as Rs. 16,81,695/-.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that, although there was due technical sanction and administrative approval for the work executed by the petitioner, and the work was carried out as per the plan and estimate under the supervision of the respondent authorities, the authorities have failed to release the admitted amount for reasons best known to them. It was further submitted that the petitioner approached the respondent authorities on several occasions, but no heed was paid to his request. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

6. Mr. P. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel, Fishery Department submitted that there is no denial to the fact that the work in question was issued to the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that the entitlement of the petitioner would depend upon verification to be carried out by the Respondent Authorities.

7. Upon perusal of the materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner had completed the above-mentioned work, the petitioner would be entitled to the amount. However, for the same, verification on the part of the Respondent Authorities would be required.

8. This Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions:-

(i) The Respondent Authorities shall verify as to whether the petitioner had successfully executed the work, i.e. “Excavation of KUR No. 2 at Beria Beel in the district of Barpeta, Pkg. No. 16-‘B’, under the scheme Creation of Capital Assets by Development of Beel Fisheries of AFDCL Ltd. under SOPD-ODS for the year 2019–20”.

(ii) The Respondent Authorities shall also verify as to whether the petitioner had submitted the requisite documents which are required for the purpose of releasing the amount due as claimed by the petitioner.

(iii) The Respondent Authorities shall also verify the entitlement of the petitioner to the dues, and if upon verification in the manner