Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 13 October, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010201472022
2025:GAU-AS:13638
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6547/2022
ISMILE MIRDHA
S/O- MD. KHALIL MIRDHA,
BHUTAIATI,
P.O.- DEMORUGURI,
NAGAON, ASSAM,
PIN- 782001.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM,
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI.
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
GUWAHATI-3.
3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
HOJAI CIRCLE (IRRIGATION).
4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KALIABOR CAD DIVISION (IRRIGATION)
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K SARMA, MR D KALITA,MR H J TAMULI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION,
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
ORDER
13.10.2025
Heard Mr H J Tamuli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also
heard Mr D S Neog, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department, appearing on
behalf of all the respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by failure of the respondent
authorities in making payment of the admitted amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- to the
petitioner for the work done by the petitioner as per the work order dated 1 st of
March 2016 issued to him by the respondent No. 4. It is the case of the
petitioner that the respondent authorities in the Department of Irrigation in the
District of Nagaon had issued a notice inviting tender for "repairing of the PVC
distribution system at Naltoli and Nij Chilabonda DTW scheme for the year
2015-16". The petitioner had participated in the tender process and came out to
be a successful bidder, whereupon a formal work order bearing number
CAD(K)CS/1/1713 dated 01.03.2016 was issued to the petitioner under the
signatures of the Executive Engineer, Kaliabor CAD Division, Jakhalabandha
Nagaon, Assam. The petitioner was required to complete the work allotted to
him within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of the formal work order.
3. The petitioner has stated in his petition that the Deputy Chief
Administrator, Upper Assam CAD Authority, Katimari, Nagaon had physically
verified the work executed by the petitioner and the Inspection Report issued by
the Executive Engineer, Jakhalabandha, Nagaon was also counter signed by the
Deputy Chief Administrator, Upper Assam CAD Authority, Katimari, Nagaon. The
Page No.# 3/5
petitioner had thereafter submitted the bills in accordance with terms of the
work order. It is the further case of the petitioner that by an order dated
8.12.2016 issued by the Under Secretary of the Government of Assam,
Irrigation Department, Budget Branch, the financial sanction of the Government
of Assam was conveyed to a cumulative amount of Rs. 38, 89,124/- in respect
of the schemes taken up under the detailed heads including the work in
question completed by the petitioner.
4. The petitioner further projects that the budget allocation and ceiling for
the work executed by the petitioner was released by the Government vide
Budget No. CEI/B55/2016/Pt-1/115 dated 4th of January 2017 and FOC No.
IGN(B) 336/2016/26 dated 18TH of January 2017. The Executive Engineer failed
to make payments to the petitioner and the ceiling referred to hereinabove had
lapsed on the 31st of March 2017. The petitioner thereafter had preferred a
representation to the respondent authorities for release of the payment of the
billed amount, however, no such payment was made.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has extensively relied upon the
contents of the documents annexed to the pleadings to substantiate that it is an
admitted position that the work had been executed by the petitioner and
sanction had also been granted for making payment for the work executed by
him. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that sanctioning of
the amount is an admission in itself of the amount due to the petitioner and
therefore, it is prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the respondents
to make the payment of the bill to the petitioner amounting to Rs. 3,20,000/-
only, for the works executed by him. This Court had on earlier occasions given
opportunity to the respondent authorities to verify the authenticity of the
Page No.# 4/5
certificates and other documents annexed by the petitioner to his writ petition.
6. Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned standing Counsel for
the Irrigation Department has produced a letter dated 27 th of March 2023,
issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Irrigation
Department stating that the sanction accorded on 8.12.2016 annexed to the
writ petition is an authentic document. By another communication dated 11 th of
February 2025 issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Assam, it has been
communicated that steps have been initiated for obtaining fresh proposal for
demand of funds from the Executive Engineer, Kaliabor Samuguri Division,
Irrigation Department and that steps would be subsequently taken up for
payment to the petitioner as per availability of Fund. The learned standing
Counsel has not been able to dispute the assertion of petitioner that the work as
per the work order had indeed been executed by the petitioner and that on an
earlier occasion, even the bill amount had also received the sanction of the
appropriate authorities and that though FOC had also been issued, due to the
lapses on the part of the Executive Engineer, the petitioner was not paid his
dues on time. Therefore, in terms of the judgment of this court in the case of
Tamshir Ali and others versus State of Assam and others reported in (2008) 4
GLT 1, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondent authorities,
more specifically the respondent number 2, i.e. the Chief Engineer, Irrigation
Department, to verify the amount payable to the petitioner, taking into account
the earlier sanction granted, which is not disputed by the respondents. The
admitted amount shall be thereafter paid to the petitioner. The entire exercise
should be concluded within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
Page No.# 5/5
7. The communications dated 27.3.2023 and 11.02.2025 are made kept as
part of the record of this writ petition and are marked "X" and "Y" respectively.
8. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of, without any order as to costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
