Disposed¶¶35

Uttam Das v. the State of Assam and Othrs

Contractual dues – Admission by State

Gauhati HC8 Feb 2026WP(C)/4679/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court, single Bench (N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J), WP(C)/4679/2025, order dated 09/02/2026 — Uttam Das v. State of Assam & others (Irrigation Department): direction to release admitted contractual dues of Rs.14,46,341/- within six months; plea of non-payment due to dearth of funds rejected; dues admitted in RTI reply and para-wise comments; no affidavit filed by respondents; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent authorities to release the petitioner's admitted contractual dues of Rs.14,46,341/- within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. ¶¶35

Uttam Das Vs the State of Assam and Othrs — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondent authorities to release the petitioner's admitted contractual dues of Rs.14,46,341/- within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent authorities are liable to release the petitioner's admitted contractual dues of Rs.14,46,341/- for the works executed by him. +1 more

¶¶21

Court's answer

The contractual dues receivable by the petitioner, being admitted by the respondent authorities, are required to be paid to the petitioner at the earliest.

¶¶33

Ratio / Principle

The plea of non-release of the dues on account of dearth of funds is not sustainable, since the work was allotted after a due tendering process with administrative approval and technical sanction, and the respondents did not dispute the petitioner's claim regarding his outstanding liability.

¶¶32

Key takeaways

The respondent authorities are directed to release the petitioner's admitted contractual dues of Rs.14,46,341/- within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.ratio¶¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contractual dues — Admission by State — Petitioner, a works contractor, executed six works allotted after administrative approval and technical sanction; completion certificates and utilization certificates were issued and final bills submitted. Of the total bills of Rs.31,41,346/-, the respondents released Rs.16,95,005/-, leaving admitted dues of Rs.14,46,341/-. Admission of the dues was recorded in an RTI reply and in the para-wise comments of the Executive Engineer, Naduar Division (Irrigation); respondents filed no affidavit and attributed non-release only to dearth of funds. Held, the dearth-of-funds plea is unsustainable as the works were allotted after due tendering with administrative approval and technical sanction and the outstanding liability was not disputed. Respondent authorities directed to release the admitted contractual dues of Rs.14,46,341/- within six months from receipt of a certified copy of the order; writ petition disposed of.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010167272025

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4679/2025

¶6

UTTAM DAS S/O- NOGEN DAS, R/O- NABEL , P.O- NATHARBARI, P.S- JAMUGURI, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784182

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

¶9

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI ASSAM- 781003.

¶10

3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

¶11

TEZPUR CIRCLE (IRRIGATION) TEZPUR DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784110

¶12

4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶13

NADUAR DIVISION (IRRIGATION) SOOTEA DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-78417

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. J GHOSH, MS. U NANDA,MR. S C BISWAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION,

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶18

ORDER

¶19

09/02/2026

¶20

Heard Mr. S C Biswas along with Ms. U Nanda, learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N Upadhyay, learned Standing counsel, Irrigation Department appearing for the respondents.

¶21

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to release his admitted contractual dues, amounting to Rs.14,46,341/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Three Hundred Forty One).

¶22

3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner was allotted six different works, amounting to Rs.34,49,55,000/- (Rupees Thirty Four Crore Forty Nine Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand). The said works were allotted to the petitioner after administrative approval and technical sanction for the same was granted by the competent authorities. On being issued with the work order, the petitioner on completion of the requisite formalities, proceeded to execute the said work. The petitioner at various stages of execution of the said works, was submitting his running bills and on conclusion of the works and the completion certificates, utilization certificates being issued, the petitioner submitted his final bills. The total bill submitted by the petitioner works out to Rs.31,41,346/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Forty One Thousand Three Hundred Forty Six). The respondents at various point of time released to the petitioner an amount of Rs.16,95,005/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand and Five), however, the balance amount of Rs.14,46,341/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Three Hundred Forty One) not being released to the petitioner, he has instituted the present proceeding.

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

4. Mr. S C Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts, noticed hereinabove, has placed reliance on an RTI reply furnished to the petitioner, wherein, the amount claimed by the petitioner as the arrear contractual dues have been admitted by the respondent authorities. He submits that the persons, who had completed similar nature of works, after completion of their works were already released their dues and a discrimination was meted out to the petitioner in not releasing to him his admitted contractual dues.

¶25

5. Mr. N Upadhyay, learned Standing counsel, Irrigation Department has placed on record a para-wise comments received by him from the Executive Engineer, Naduar Division (Irrigation) (marked as ‘X’) and submits that in terms of the said para-wise comments, the dues of the petitioner to the extent of Rs.14,46,341/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Three Hundred Forty One) is admitted by the respondent authorities. He submits that only on account of dearth of funds, the amount could not be released to the petitioner.

¶26

6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶27

7. The petitioner in the present writ petition has claimed that an outstanding amount of Rs.14,46,341/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Three Hundred Forty One) is receivable by him in connection with the works allotted to him, which were successfully completed by him and against which, completion certificate and other requisite documents were furnished by the respondent authorities, which indicates satisfactory completion of the works by the petitioner.

¶28

8. In the writ petition, an RTI reply has been brought on record, which also reveals the total bills claimed by the petitioner and the amounts paid to the petitioner. The said RTI reply also brings on record that an amount of Rs.14,46,341/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Three Hundred Forty One) is receivable by the petitioner and the said amount is an admitted amount.

¶29

9. The respondents had not filed any affidavit in the matter, however, a para-wise comment received by the learned Standing counsel, Irrigation Department was placed on record and a perusal of the same would also reveal that the claim made by the petitioner of

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

being entitled to receive an amount of Rs.14,46,341/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Three Hundred Forty One) as his outstanding contractual dues is admitted to by the respondents.

¶32

10. As the respondents in the present writ petition have raised a plea that the amount in question was not released to the petitioner on account of dearth of funds, this Court is of the considered view that the said plea is not sustainable, inasmuch as, the work in question was so allotted to the petitioner after a due tendering process and the same was so tendered after administrative approval and technical sanction for the same was granted by the competent authorities. The respondents in the present proceeding have also not disputed the claim made by the petitioner with regard to his outstanding liability.

¶33

11. In view of the above position, the contractual dues receivable by the petitioner, being admitted by the respondent authorities, the same would now be required to be paid to the petitioner, at the earliest.

¶34

12. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to release to the petitioner his admitted contractual dues of Rs.14,46,341/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Three Hundred Forty One) within a period of 6 (six) months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶35

13. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Uttam Das v. the State of Assam and Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam Das v. the State of Assam and Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Subhash Motors Vs the General Manager, N.F. Railways, and 2 Ors.

M/S Goodwill Traders Vs the General Manager, North Eastern Frontier Railways and 2 Ors.

Ribhoi Coal and Coke Pvt. Ltd. Vs the General Manager and 2 Ors.

Unicure India Limited Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Abdur Rahim Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Jahura Khatun Vs Gyanendra Dev Tripathi and Anr.