WP(C) 1520/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.VAIPHEI Heard Mr. G.Uddin, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. A.Verma, learned S.C, Health Department,Govt. of Assam. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the State-r espondents to pay him the bills amounting to Rs.1,42,473 for supply of Liveri es/Dietaries to Assam Medical College Hospital, Dibrugarh, which has been pendin g since, 1995-96.In pursuance of the tender floated by the then Principal-cum- Chief Superintendent, Assam Medical College Hiospital, Dibrugarh, a number of work orders has been issued in favour of the petitioner for supply of the afor esaid food stuff. The petitioner is said to have executed all the work orders, but the bills submitted by him have not been honoured till now. This prompted h im to file the writ petition. Opposing the writ petition, the State-respondents have now filed affidavit in op position. The main contention of the State- respondents is that Dr. Bhadreswar D as, who was the Principal cum-Chief Superintendent of the Assam Medical College and Hospital during 1994-95, has since retired from service on superannuation a nd also the other persons dealing with the matters have also retired since then and that on receipt of the bills amounting to Rs. 1,42,473 submitted by the pet itioner, the then Principal asked the deponent’s office to look into the matter for disposal. However, no record in respect of all the bills submitted by the petitioner is traceable and only 13 work orders were found, the total value wh ereof is Rs.89,169/- and not Rs. 93,369/-as claimed by the petitioner. It is al so stated by the answering respondents that there is no office records of Work O rders numbering 6 for Rs 49,104/- The petitioner in his reply affidavit disputes the case of the State-respondents and has in fact, annexed Xerox copies of all the 6 supply orders received by h im which are found at Annexures 1 to 6. It may be noticed that the State-respond ents in their affidavits have also admitted the existence of 13 supply orders a mounting of Rs.89,169/-and did not deny the execution of such supply orders. I f that be the case, there is no difficulty in directing the State-respondents t o re-examine the matter in the light of the aforesaid 13 Nos. of supply orders a long with the supply order annexed at annexures 1 to 6 of the reply affidavit f iled by the petitioner and thereafter take a decision for payment of the bills w ithin a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the order. It is ordered accordingly. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to cost .