WP(C) 5196/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. SP Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr . Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, PWD appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr. SN Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6. The petitioner, by the present petition has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay a sum of Rs.68,00,000/-, which a ccording to the petitioner, is due and payable to him, i.e. construction of RCC Studio, 2nd Floor at Jyoti Chitraban Film Studio, Kahilipara pursuant to the wor k order dated 27th April, 1998. According to the petitioner, though he complete d the said work and submitted the bill from time to time, an amount of Rs.68,00, 000/- is still due and payable to him, which has not been paid. The respondent No.6 in the affidavit-in-opposition filed has contended that the petitioner earlier approached this Court in WP(C) No.969 /2007 praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay the amount fo r the work completed by him, pursuant to the said work order. It has further be en contended that the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 2nd Ma rch, 2007 directing the respondents therein to consider the claim of the petitio ner and to make payment, if he is entitled to the same, in terms of the directio ns contained in the judgment and order dated 31st May, 2005 passed in WP(C) No.3 354/2004 (Jatin Pathak -Vs- State of Assam & Ors.) and thereafter, the claim of the petitioner was scrutinized and having found that the petitioner was in fact paid excess amount of Rs.38,878/-, he was directed by the Secretary of the respo ndent No.6 to refund the said amount. According to the respondent No.6, despite receipt of such communication, the amount has not been refunded. The respondent No.6, therefore, contends that nothing is payable to the petitioner in respect of the work done by him, which he has not completed. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to various averments made in the writ petition as well as the affidavit-in-reply f iled by the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is still entitled to Rs .68,00,000/-, which amount in fact has been sanctioned and withdrawn by the Jyot i Chitraban but has not been paid to the petitioner, though he is entitled to th e said amount. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, ha s not disputed the receipt of the communication dated 24th July, 2009 (Annexure- R3 to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.6), whereby and whe reunder the petitioner’s claim has been rejected by the respondent No.6 and he h as been asked to refund the sum of Rs.38,878/- in respect of the payment made fo r the aforesaid construction work. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petit ioner, the receipt of such document has also not been denied. The petitioner, h owever, for reasons best known to him, has suppressed such material facts from t his Court at the time of filing of this writ petition. Be that as it may, since the petitioner’s claim, pursuan t to the earlier directions contained in the order dated 2nd March, 2007 passed WP(C) No.969/2007, has been scrutinized and it was found by the respondent No.6 that nothing is due and payable to the petitioner in connection with the aforesa id work order dated 27th April, 1998, which, however, has been disputed by the l earned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument, the relief claimed in the present writ petition cannot be granted, as it requires examinati on of evidences to be adduced by the parties, which cannot conveniently be done in a writ proceeding and in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of th e Constitution of India and can conveniently be done in an appropriate civil sui t to be instituted by the petitioner before the appropriate Court having jurisdi ction over the subject matter of the case. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed . No costs.