Public authorities must verify completed works and pay the contractor’s entitlement under Tamsher Ali.

Pursuant to administrative approval, technical sanction, and a successful bidding process, the petitioner was issued a work order dated 29.08.2017 for construction of the proposed office building for all CHC Office Complexes in Kokrajhar District under the One Time Special Grant for 2017–2018, at a bid amount of ₹10,62,31,000.

The petitioner claimed to have completed and handed over the work, supported by a Completion Certificate and a Handing Over and Taking Over Certificate issued by the respondent authorities.

Against bills amounting to ₹8,02,86,449, the petitioner was paid ₹4,82,68,911, leaving an alleged balance of ₹3,20,17,538.

After an unsuccessful representation dated 09.08.2024 seeking payment of the outstanding amount, the petitioner approached the Gauhati High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The BTC authorities contended that completion of the work and the petitioner’s actual entitlement required verification.

1. Whether the respondent authorities were required to verify whether the petitioner had completed the contracted works in accordance with the work order.

2. Whether, upon such verification, the petitioner was entitled to payment of any outstanding amount, and whether such payment should be made in accordance with Tamsher Ali v. State of Assam, 2008 (4) GLT 1.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to secure a fair consideration of the petitioner’s claim for payment.

It applied the principle that, where the contractor’s completion of works and precise monetary entitlement are disputed or require factual verification, the competent departmental authorities should first verify the execution of the work and ascertain the amount lawfully payable.

The Court directed that any amount found payable be released in accordance with the Full Bench decision in Tamsher Ali and Others v. State of Assam and Others, 2008 (4) GLT 1.

The Court noted that the petitioner relied on the Completion Certificate, Handing Over and Taking Over Certificate, submitted bills, and the alleged unpaid balance.

However, the BTC disputed that the petitioner’s completion of the works and exact entitlement could be accepted without departmental verification.

Since determination of the completed work and the amount payable required factual examination by the technical authorities, the Court considered it appropriate not to directly order payment of the claimed sum.

Instead, it directed Respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4 to verify compliance with the work order and calculate the petitioner’s actual entitlement, applying the principles in Tamsher Ali if any amount was found due.

The verification was to be completed within one month from service of a certified copy of the order upon Respondent No. 1.

Any amount found payable was directed to be released in accordance with Tamsher Ali, 2008 (4) GLT 1.