WP(C)/4582/2026 of SRI RAKESH KUMAR SINGHANIA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS on 27 August 2026

ORDER

28.08.2026 Heard Shri P. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who by means of this petition has prayed for a direction for release of contractual dues. Also heard Ms. R. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department, Asssam. Ms. R. Deka, learned Standing Counsel has, however, raised an objection that the liability statement is not signed by the Chief Engineer/ Head of the Department which is one of the requirements as laid down by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tamsher Ali & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1. The Hon’ble Full Bench in the case of Tamsher Ali (supra) has laid down three pre-conditions before entertaining a writ petition pertaining to contractual dues which read as follows: “i) All claims for payment of outstanding dues would be entertained for consideration provided the same are admitted by the respective departments. The admissions of liability shall have to be certified by the respective Chief Engineer in respect of Works Departments and in respect of other departments by the Head of the departments.

ii) All claims for payment of admitted outstanding dues would be entertained for payment provided the claims are lodged before the competent authority within a period of three years from the date of the payment becoming due.

iii) All claims for payment of admitted outstanding dues in respect of which the contractors intend or have approached the Hon'ble Court, in such cases, the contractors must approach the Hon'ble High Court within a period of 3 years from the date of the payment becoming due. This view has been taken as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhailal Bhai and Ors. reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006 at Para 21 has observed that though provisions of Limitation Act do not as such apply to proceedings under Article 226, the period of Limitation prescribed by Limitation Act for instituting a civil action may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured.” This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot embark into the arena where disputed questions of facts are there. Even though the petitioner has asserted that the works were done for which, he is entitled to the bills, unless the same is proved in accordance with law, no orders can be passed by this Court. As indicated above, the scope of adducing evidence to establish a fact is limited in a writ proceeding wherein the examination is done based on the pleadings duly supported by an affidavit. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court for redressal of her grievances, if so advised in law.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant