SWADESH LAL ROY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon hearing Mr. Amitava Roy, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr, H. Rahman, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents at some length, I arm of the view that this matter can be disposed of at this stage considering the simple nature of the case and, accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following short order.

(2.) In this writ petition, a prayer has been made by the writ petitioner for a direction to the official respondents to release the outstanding amount of Rs. 7,82,509/00 (Rupees Seven lakhs eighty two thousand five hundred and nine) only of the petitioner's bills for the work of metalling and blacktopping of Laisang Rajabazar Road Phase-I, Siector II from 11th to 20 KM, Group m at 14th to 15th KM. along with the interest @ 12% with effect from the dates of the final bills till the payment thereof by contending inter alia, that the petitioner executed the related work and completed the same for which the official respondents concerned had prepared the final bills and the related statements showed the outstanding liabilities in favour of the present writ petitioner to the tune of Rs. 7,82,509/-. Supporting the case of the writ petitioner, Mr. Amitava Roy, learned senior counsel had drawn my attention to the document; marked as Annexure-3 to the writ petition which is the office letter dated 29.12.2000, bearing No. NEC.II/Acct.14/2000/3915 issued by the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Silchan N.E.C., Division.II and submitted that the authority concerned had accepted the outstanding liabilities in favour of the petitioner. I have perused the same which is the related liability certificate against the work 'Metalling & Blacktopping of Laisong Rajabazar Road Phase-I, Sector.II from llth to 20th KM. Group-Ill at 14th to 15th KM and, this document establish the factum of the said outstanding liabilities in favour of the present writ petitioner to the tune of Rs. 7,82,509/-. The learned senior counsel also contended that in view of the well settled law of the land, the liabilities which was one admitted by the appropriate authority, it should be released forthwith but, it was not done so by the appropriate authority thus, putting the petitioner in hardship and, the petitioner having no alternative approached this court for an appropriate order and direction from the end of this court in the matter.

(3.) At the hearing, Mr. H. Rahman, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents submitted that the authority concerned might have given the part payment of the work done out of the said outstanding bills amount and, as such, the learned Govt. Advocate sought for sometime to have instructions in the matter and, according to him, in case any part payment is made, the same is to be examined by the appropriate authority.