WP(C) 1076/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 1. Heard Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. H.N. Sarma a nd Ms. A. Ajitsaria, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. V.L. Sing h, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 5. I have also heard Mr. M. D as, learned State Counsel for the State respondent. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a directio n to the respondents, more particularly the respondent No. 5 to release the amou nt of Rs. 22,01,670/-. According to the petitioner, it is entitled to the said a mount for supply of 23,581.08 Qntl. Of Super Fine Rice. The STATEFED has supplie d the rice to the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara through the petitioner. The amou nt having been sanctioned and paid by the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara, the pet itioner approached the official liquidator of STATEFED for payment. However, sam e having been not paid with, the writ petition was filed. 3. From the various orders passed in the writ proceeding, it appears that w hile it is the case of the petitioner that it had supply the entire quantity of rice, the official liquidator has contended that there are some other contractor s, who are also to be paid and that the petitioner alone cannot be paid the afor esaid amount. 4. From the tenor of the stand of the official liquidator in the affidavits filed, what could be gathered is that the matter is under process and that the petitioner would be paid its entitled amount after ascertaining the correct posi tion. There is no specific averments in the affidavit, it is not the petitioner who alone made the supply. However, Ms. V.L. Singh, learned counsel for the resp ondent No. 5 upon a reference to the supplementary affidavit filed by the respon dent No. 5 submits that the petitioner alone did not supply the entire quantity of rice and that there are some other contractors who are also entitled to their share out of the sanctioned amount of Rs. 22 lakhs. 5. On perusal of the supplementary affidavit, it appears that nothing has b een highlighted as to who are the other contractors, who allegedly supplied the rice alongwith the petitioner. On the other hand, Ms. Hazarika, learned Sr. Coun sel for the petitioner, upon a reference to the documents annexed to the writ pe tition submits that it is the petitioner, who alone made the supply of entire qu antity of rice. 6. Thus the question, which is involved narrowed down to the finding of fac t as to whether it is the petitioner alone who supplied the entire quantity of r ice and/or there are some other contractors, who also supplied rice out of the s aid quota. As regards the amounts sanctioned i.e. 22 lakhs, there is no dispute that the same has been sanctioned and paid for supply of the aforesaid quantity of rice. 7. In view of the above, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent No. 5 to deal with the matter consistently with his own stand in the affidavits filed in the proceeding highlighting that the matter is under pr ocess. Now only requirement for him is to ascertain as to whether the entire qua ntity of rice was supplied by the petitioner alone or there are some other contr actors, who also supplied part of the quantity. In other words, the amount shall be paid to the petitioner, if the petitioner supplied the entire quantity of th e rice. But, if it is found that there are other contractors involved in supply of rice, the petitioner will be paid its part of the dues. 7. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. Entire exercise shall be carried out as expeditiously as possible but at any rate not later than 15.5.2008.