GAHC010092422025

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/2603/2025

LANKESWAR THAKURIA

S/O LATE GOBINDA THAKURIA, R/O VILL- BAREIGAON, P.O.- TAMULPUR,

P.S.- TAMULPUR, DIST- TAMULPUR, BTC, ASSAM, PIN-781367

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS.

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,

GUWAHATI-6

2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL

KOKRAJHAR

3:THE SECRETARY

WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT

BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL

KOKRAJHAR

4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI-3

5:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER

KOKRAJHAR ZONE

WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT

BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL

KOKRAJHAR

6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

BAKSA WATER RESOURCE DIVISION

MUSHALPUR DIST- BAKSA

7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT TAMULPUR PIN-781367

8:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SUB DIVISION TAMULPUR ASSAM

9:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-

Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. N Sarkar Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. NR Sarma, Standing Counsel, BTC Ms. Tinglung for the Water Resource Dept.

B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

ORDER

28.11.2025 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 to upon completion of the contractual work allotted to him by the respondent authorities.

2. The case of the petitioner herein is that he had completed the work allotted to him pertaining to Scheme “Protection of Borkhopa Village from the erosion of river Motonga”. The petitioner submitted that he started the Scheme allotted to him and on successfully executing 84% of the Scheme submitted a Running Account Bill in the prescribed form i.e. Form No.25 ‘A’ Schedule (III-I) of an amount of Rs.12,55,894/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Four). However, the said payment had not been made to the petitioner till date, for which, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had successfully completed 84% of the work to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities and in that regard, the Executive Engineer, Baksa W.R. Division Mushalpur had also issued completion report dated 15.03.2021. In spite of the same, the petitioner has not been paid his dues. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had made several representations before the respondent authorities for release of the said amount, however, the amount of Rs.12,55,894/- is still pending.

4. Mr. NR Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the BTC submits that as to whether the petitioner has completed the work to the extent claimed is a subject matter of verification which needs to be carried out by the respondent authorities and it is only on the basis of such verification, the actual entitlement of the petitioner could be ascertained.

5. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if a direction is given to the respondent authorities to verify as to whether the petitioner has completed the work to the extent claimed in accordance with the work order mentioned hereinabove and thereupon to ascertain the exact amount to which the petitioner is entitled to, if any.

6. It is under such circumstances, this Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition thereby directing the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 9 to verify the entitlement of the petitioner on the basis of the work order which were issued in favour of the petitioner and as to whether the petitioner had completed the work in question and thereupon, after verification, if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to any amount, the same should be paid to th