WP(C)/4900/2025 of ASIM MISRA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS on 4 June 2026

ORDER

Date : 05-06-2026 Heard Mr. S.A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Thakuria, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department and Ms. A. Sarmah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5.

2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to release the outstanding amount of Rs.3,97,433.50/- towards bills raised for the supply of stationery materials, computers and computer accessories to the office of the Director of Secondary Education, Kahilipara, Assam.

3. The brief facts, as projected in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is the proprietor of a registered firm under the name and style of M/s Rabhagarh Tent & Decoration, engaged in the business of supplying various materials to Government departments as well as private entities. Pursuant to supply orders issued by the office of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, Kahilipara, the petitioner supplied stationery materials, computers and allied accessories on different occasions. Bills amounting to Rs.3,97,433.50/- were duly submitted on 02.03.2020, 06.11.2020 and 05.03.2022. However, despite the supplies having been made and the bills having been submitted, the aforesaid amount has remained unpaid. Repeated requests and personal visits made by the petitioner to the office of the respondents having yielded no result, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The documents annexed to the writ petition reveal that the supplies made by the petitioner and the corresponding bills were duly received by the respondent authorities. Significantly, the liability arising therefrom has not been disputed by the respondents.

5. When the matter was taken up today, Mr. T. Thakuria, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, produced an instruction dated 04.06.2026 received from the Directorate of Secondary Education, Assam, which reads as under:- “GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DIRECTORATE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, ASSAM KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI-781019

No.E-729359/39 From: Smt. Mamata Hojai, AES, Director of Secondary Education, Assam To: The Sr. Standing Council Gauhati High Court Guwahati-781001.

Sub.: Instruction in WP(C) No. 4900/2025 Asim Misra – Vs- State of Assam Ref: This office earlier letter No. E-729359/37 dated: 30/03/2026. Sir, In continuation of this office letter cited above under reference, I have the honour to inform you that the Government has provided only a Vote-on-Account

Budget for the current financial year due to the Assam Legislative Assembly Election, 2026. However, this Directorate is unable to submit the necessary proposal to the Government for obtaining financial sanction in respect of the petitioner, due to less budgetary provision. The proposal for financial sanction shall be submitted to the Government on priority basis immediately after the requisite budgetary provision is reflected in the current financial year's budget, for settlement of the pending claim/bill. You are, therefore, requested to kindly apprise the Hon'ble Court of the aforesaid facts and seek a reasonable extension of time in this regard.

Yours faithfully,

Digitally signed by

MAMATA HOJAI

Date: 04-06-2026

16:54:22 Director Secondary Education, Assam”

6. The relevant portion thereof thus indicates that owing to the Assam Legislative Assembly Elections, 2026, only a Vote-on-Account Budget has been provided for the current financial year and, on account of inadequate budgetary allocation, the Directorate has not been able to submit the requisite proposal to the Government for obtaining financial sanction in respect of the petitioner’s claim. It has, however, been stated that the proposal for financial sanction shall be submitted on priority immediately upon availability of the requisite budgetary provision in the current financial year’s budget for settlement of the pending claim.

7. It is well settled that once goods or services have been received and utilized by the State or its instrumentalities, the State cannot avoid its contractual and constitutional obligation to make payment merely on the plea of paucity of funds or non-availability of budgetary allocation.

8. From the aforesaid instruction, it is evident that the respondents do not dispute the petitioner’s claim or the outstanding amount payable. The only ground cited for non-payment is the present financial constraint arising out of inadequate budgetary provision. While budgetary limitations may explain the delay, the same cannot constitute a valid ground to indefinitely withhold payment of admitted dues. The petitioner having supplied the materials pursuant to valid supply orders and the respondents having accepted the same without demur, the legitimate claim of the petitioner cannot be denied.

9. In view of the above, and considering the admitted nature of the liability, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be served by directing the respondents, particularly the respondent No. 3, to take all necessary steps for securing the requisite financial sanction and thereafter release the outstanding amount payable to the petitioner in accordance with law.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents, more particularly respondent No. 3, to ensure payment of the petitioner’s admitted outstanding dues within an outer limit of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

11. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant