SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 957

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Numal Saikia, S/o. Late Kuladhar Saikia – Petitioner
Versus 
The State Of Assam, To Be Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Government Of Assam And Ors. – Respondent
WP(C) 6918 of 2022 
Decided On : 20-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. A.K. Azad, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. M. Das, Standing Counsel

Where a contractor has completed public works and obtained technical certification, the state is obligated to perform a timely verification of the claim and disburse earned payments and security deposits in accordance with established judicial precedents regarding the settlement of contractor dues.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 80 - Public works contract - Non-payment of dues - Petition for writ of mandamus to compel payment for completed government works - Where a contractor has executed works and obtained completion certificates, authorities are obligated to verify entitlement and ensure timely payment of outstanding bill balances and security deposits. (Paras 6, 9)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of judicial intervention - Where state authorities fail to process legitimate monetary claims for verified works, courts may issue directions for administrative verification and time-bound disbursement of funds in accordance with settled judicial precedents. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a registered contractor, sought the release of outstanding payments and security deposits for completed infrastructure development projects. Despite obtaining a completion certificate and certifying the physical progress of the work, the authorities failed to process the balance dues. Formal representations and notices were submitted by the petitioner, but as no action was taken by the responding parties, the instant writ petition was filed.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the primary issue regarding the completion of work and the exact entitlement of the petitioner requires a formal administrative verification. Consequently, it mandated the authorities concerned to verify the work completion status and the corresponding financial entitlement to ensure the settlement of dues.

Issues: Whether the state authorities are legally obligated to verify and release outstanding payments and security deposits for public works that are asserted to have been completed according to the tender conditions and certified by the inspecting engineering personnel.

Ratio Decidendi: Where contractual work is completed and verified by the competent technical authority, the state cannot withhold payments indefinitely. The court held that it is the duty of the administration to verify claims and, if found legitimate, ensure the disbursement of the outstanding amount and the return of security deposits in accordance with established principles of law.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions for verification and payment within a defined period.

Table of Content
1. establishing the factual basis for unpaid contractual claims by a government contractor. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. requirement for departmental verification of work completion before payment eligibility. (Para 7)
3. court mandated verification and payment process in accordance with established precedents for state liabilities. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. A.K. Azad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Ms. M. Das, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the PWD.

2. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondent Authorities in not making payment of the amount to which the Petitioner is entitled upon completion of the work.

3. The Petitioner herein is a registered Class-1(A) contractor under the PWD, Government of Assam, and has executed various works in the said Department to the entire satisfaction of the concerned authorities.

4. The case of the Petitioner herein is that, vide Work Order No. CE/NEC/BR/11/2012/Pt-V/7 dated 10.10.2012 issued after completion of the tender process against Tender No. NEC/BR/08 of 2012–13 of the Chief Engineer (Border Roads & NEC Works), a formal work order was issued in favour of the Petitioner by the Chief Engineer, PWD, Border Roads & NEC Works, Assam, Guwahati. By the said work order, the Petitioner was allotted the work, namely, “Development of Margherita–Deomali Road in Tinsukia District in Assam under the Social and Infrastructure Development Fund (SIDF) (Ch. 0.00 m to Ch. 750.00 m, including construction of R.C.C. Bridge No. ½), Package No. TSK-SP-1A.”

5. It is the case of the Petitioner that, after signing of the agreement and furnishing of performance security, the Chief Engineer, PWD, Border Roads & NEC Works, Assam, on 10.10.2012, issued a letter to the Petitioner asking him to proceed with the execution of the said work in accordance with the contract documents. Accordingly, the Petitioner commenced the work as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and submitted Running Account Bills for the said work before the Respondent Authorities from time to time.

6. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the Respondent Authorities made part payments of the running bills of the Petitioner, and finally, on 10.11.2015, the Petitioner completed the said work and submitted the final bill. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Tinsukia State Road Division issued a Completion Certificate certifying that the work had been physically verified by him and found to have been completed by the Petitioner in all respects in accordance with the specifications, drawings, and tender conditions, with 100% physical progress. Further to that, it is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent Authorities paid an amount of Rs. 1,74,78,299/- against the bills submitted by the Petitioner from time to time, and at the time of such payments, the Respondent Authorities deducted all applicable charges, such as Income Tax, VAT, Labour Cess, etc., and also deducted security deposits against each and every bill of the Petitioner. In this regard, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Digboi & Margherita Territorial Road Division, issued a Liability Statement on 30.06.2020, wherein it was mentioned that the Petitioner had been paid an amount of Rs. 1,74,78,299/- after deductions, and that an amount of Rs. 13,08,014/- remained outstanding as balance bill amount payable to the Petitioner. It was further mentioned that the security deposit amounting to Rs. 12,05,309/- deducted from the Petitioner’s bills was also liable to be paid to the Petitioner. It is further averred in the writ petition that the Petitioner submitted a representation on 10.08.2020 to the Executive Engineer, PWD, Margherita–Digboi Territorial Road Division, Tinsukia, praying for payment of the outstanding bill amount and security deposit. However, no steps were taken in that regard. The Petitioner also sub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top