Further payment was declined, but authorities were ordered to disclose payment vouchers for reconciliation.

The petitioner approached the Gauhati High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking payment of ₹60,96,496 along with interest at 10% per annum from the PWD authorities.

In its affidavit-in-opposition, Respondent No. 2 stated that the running bill had been prepared according to the work executed at site and that ₹89,32,823 had already been paid against a bill value of ₹1,36,64,697.

The petitioner did not deny this assertion in his affidavit-in-reply.

Subsequently, by an additional affidavit dated 6 August 2026, Respondent No. 2 asserted that the entire bill amount of ₹1,36,64,697 had been paid in stages after necessary deductions and enclosed a completion certificate recording such payment.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner could not reconcile the accounts because the relevant payment vouchers were unavailable.

1. Whether the Court could direct the respondent authorities to make any further payment to the petitioner when the authorities asserted that the entire bill amount had already been paid after deductions.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to obtain the payment vouchers and disbursement details for reconciling the alleged payments.

3. Whether any discrepancy revealed upon reconciliation could justify action against Respondent No. 2 for filing a misleading or false affidavit before the Court.

The Court applied the principle that a writ court should not direct further payment where the respondent authority has placed material before it showing that the claimed contractual dues have already been discharged, particularly when the petitioner has not denied an earlier statement of substantial payment.

At the same time, where the petitioner disputes or cannot verify the asserted payments due to non-availability of supporting records, the Court may direct production of relevant payment vouchers and disbursement details to facilitate reconciliation.

The Court did not rely upon or cite any specific statutory provision or judicial precedent; its directions were based on the evidentiary record and the obligation of public authorities to substantiate statements made on affidavit before the Court.

The Court noted that the petitioner sought ₹60,96,496, but the respondents relied on records showing payments first amounting to ₹89,32,823 and subsequently, according to the additional affidavit and completion certificate, the entire bill value of ₹1,36,64,697 after deductions.

Since the petitioner had not denied the initial payment statement and the respondents had asserted full payment, the Court found no basis to order further payment in the writ proceedings.

However, because the petitioner could not reconcile the accounts without the payment vouchers, the Court balanced both positions by directing Respondent No. 2 to furnish the vouchers and payment details.

It further indicated that if reconciliation demonstrated that the asserted payments had not in fact been made, the filing of the additional affidavit could be treated as misleading or false, permitting the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings.

Respondent No. 2 was directed, upon production of a certified copy of the judgment, to provide the petitioner with the payment vouchers and disbursement details evidencing payment of ₹1,36,64,697, within thirty days.

The Court clarified that if reconciliation established that the payments had not been made as stated, the petitioner could take appropriate steps in law concerning the allegedly misleading or false affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2.