WP(C) 2620/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A POTSANGBAM Heard Mr. M. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. R. Deka, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7. A lso heard Mrs. HN Phukan, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of respond ent Nos. 3 and 5. [2] The petitioner is a Govt. Registered Class -I C contractor under the Ele ctrical Division of PWD, Jorhat and he used to take electrification works in Go vernment as well as private buildings wherever and whenever he is requested to do so. In the instant case, the electrification of the Court Building Campus a t Nazira Sub-Division was entrusted to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Jorhat Electrical Division, Jorhat, in connection with Panchayat Election held in the year 2007. After completion of works, a bill for a sum of Rs. 4,93, 940.00, being the outstanding amount payable and due to the petitioner, was subm itted to the concerned Electrical Division of the PWD which, in their turn, refe rred the matter to the SDO, Nazira for necessary sanction and payment. [3] There is no dispute with regard to the completion of works and the due a mount as claimed by the petitioner. The ground taken by the respondent No. 5 wh o has filed an affidavit-in-opposition in his capacity as the SDO, Nazira, is th at the claimed amount of the petitioner was forwarded for sanction to the Commis sioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Depa rtment vide letter dated NZR/PAN-E/6/2006-07/116 dated 05.04.2009 (Annexure- 1 t o the affidavit -in-opposition of respondent No. 5) under Sl. No. 7 and 8 and an other letter dated 30.05.2009 (Annexure - 2 to the affidavit-in opposition of re spondent No. 5) was also submitted by way of reminder to release the fund and a commitment has been made in the affidavit that as soon as the fund is received, the amount will be paid to the petitioner through the PWD. [4] The affidavit-in-opposition of respondent No. 5 do not deny the outstand ing bills of the petitioner. The only ground for non-payment of the bill amount is that the amount has not yet been sanctioned by the Govt. and as soon as the a mount is sanctioned, the payment will be made to the petitioner. It is difficult to comprehend how a contractor has been asked to spend a huge amount of money a nd complete the works to meet the urgent situation and thereafter the payment of bill amount has been denied for nearly four/ five years. [5] In this view of the matter, this court is of the opinion that interest o f justice would be served better if I dispose of this case with a direction to t he respondents to release the fund so that pending bill of the petitioner can be paid expeditiously. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to release the necessary fund for payment of the outstanding bill as , mentioned above, to the petitioner, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [6] The petitioner shall be at liberty to obtain a certified copy of this or der and to submit the same to the respondents for compliance of this order. [7] With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands di sposed of.