WP(C) 6770/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. P.Pathak, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. I. Choudhury, learned standing counsel of the PWD appears for respondent Nos. 1, 4, 6 and 7. The Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways and their officials are r epresented by Mr. R. Sarma, learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India. 2. This pertains to the work order issued to the petitioner on 21.9.99 in r espect of Improvement of Riding Quality in KM-209 to 227 Km of National Highwa y-37 . As the contractor’s 5th running account bill remained unpaid and the con tract itself was terminated on 12.7.01 with penalty for delayed execution of t he work, being aggrieved, this writ petition was filed. 3. However, in course of hearing the learned senior counsel representing fo r the petitioner submits that barring the claim for payment of the 5th Running A ccount bill amounting to Rs.55,80,649.40, the other two reliefs with regard to t he cancellation of contract and imposition of penalty are not claimed in the pre sent proceeding. 4. Mr. R. Sarma, learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India submits that alt hough payments were earlier made for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Running Account bills since no approval of the Ministry of Shipping, Road, Transport and Highways was obtained for the revised estimate of the work and the work was awarded by the St ate PWD beyond the powers delegated to them, the Ministry of Road Transport is f inding it difficult to make payment of 5th Running Account bill of the Contracto r. 5.1 Mr I. Choudhury, learned standing counsel for the State PWD authorities refers to the affidavit filed by the Chief Engineer and submits that the estimat ed value of the work allotted to the petitioner was Rs.349.70 lacs and the Minis try of Road, Transport and Highways was the Drawing and Disbursing authority for the said work. He points out that since the progress of the work was found to b e unsatisfactory by the PWD authorities, on 12.7.2001 the contract was cancelled and by taking recourse to Clause-3 of the Contract Agreement, penalty amounting to Rs.19,89,100 has been imposed on the Contractor. 5.2 In so far as the 5th Running Account bill, Mr. Choudhury contends that t he said bill has already been forwarded to the Drawing and Disbursing Authority, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways on 30.10.01 and thereafter reminders h ave also been issued by the State PWD for paying the dues of the Contractor but as approval of the Central Ministry has not been received, the payment has not b een made to the Contractor. However, the learned counsel points out that the pen alty amount must to be deducted from the amount payable to the Contractor. 6. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has confined their prayer to the solitary relief of payment of the 5th Running Account bill, this Court is not considering the other two grievances raised in the writ petition i.e. perta ining to cancellation of contract and imposition of penalty against the Contract or. 7. As regards the 5th Running Account bill is concerned, I find that final conclusion on the claim is yet to be reached by the 2 concerned authorities i.e. the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways and the State PWD authorities. Bot h are exchanging correspondences in the matter. It is also seen that while it is claimed on behalf of the Ministry that approval to the contract was not granted , the Ministry had cleared the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Running Account bills of the Con tractor for payment. Obviously such payments have been made, notwithstanding the alleged lack of the Ministry’s approval to the work allotted to the petitioner. 8. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the State P WD authorities and the competent authority of the Ministry of Road, Transport an d Highways ought to make a joint effort to resolve the controversy with regard t o the entitlement of the dues, in respect of the 5th Running Account bill raised by the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned Asstt. Solicitor General of I ndia that the competent authority to represent the Ministry in the matter, is th e Regional Officer, Govt. of India, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways (Re spondent No.3), whereas it is submitted by the State PWD counsel that the compet ent authority for the State PWD is the Commissioner and Special Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, PWD (National Highways and Buildings) and the Chief Engineer (N ational Highways). 9. In view of above,, the competent authorities of the State PWD and the Mi nistry of Road, Transport and Highways are ordered to deliberate and take a deci sion on the payment claim of the 5th Running Account bill submitted by the Contr actor. The petitioner is also ordered to co-operate for resolving the dispute. A n appropriate decision after such deliberation is ordered to be taken, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court’s order. 10. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. 11. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. R. Sarma, Asstt. S.G.I. and Mr. I. Choudhury, standing counsel, PWD