WP(C) 5974/2002 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T. VAIPHEI Heard Mrs. K. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Phukan, learned Govt. Advocate who appears on behalf of State respondents. This is the second round of litigations initiated by the petitioner to pursue hi s bills for the works executed by him pursuant to the work orders issued by the State respondents from time to time. The particulars of the work orders and the bill amounts are as follows :- Different Bills Pending under Hamren (PHE) Divn, Hamren (K/A) Sl.No. Work Order Nos. Particulars of bill Name of Firms M.B.Nos with Pages Bill Amount 01 No.PHEE/HRN/AC-11/93/94/1856 dated 27.03.95 For supply of materials M/s. India Traders M.B. No.277(H) Page No.137-136 Rs.30,866.40 No.PHEE/HRN/AC-11/93/94/285 dated 26.09.94 For supply of materials M/s. India Traders M.B. No.277(H) Page No.184-136 Rs.27,324.00 No.PHEE/HRN/AC-11/93/94/1866 dated 28.03.95 For supply of materials M/s. India Traders M.B. No.277(H) Page No.69-72 Rs.37,530.00 No.PHEE/HRN/AC-11/93/94/2004 dated 29.03.95 For supply of materials M/s. India Traders M.B. No.277(H) Page No.73-76 Rs.28,577.00 No.PHEE/HRN/AC-11/93/94/2063 dated 30.03.95 For supply of materials M/s. India Traders M.B. No.277(H) Page No.147-149 Rs.20,563.20 No.PHEE/HRN/AC-11/93/94/100 dated 06.04.95 For supply of materials M/s. India Traders M.B. No.277(H) Page No.143-145 Rs.27,324.00 No.PHEE/HRN/AC-11/93/94/45 dated 05.04.95 For supply of materials M/s. India Traders M.B. No.316(H) Rs.27,324.00 No.PHEE/HRN/AC-11/93/94/121 dated 07.04.95 For supply of materials M/s. India Traders M.B. No.316(H) Rs.24,362.64 No.PHEE/HRN/AC-11/93/94/481 dated 07.10.95 For supply of materials M/s. India Traders M.B. No.316(H) Rs.26,590.00 Rs. 2,50,461.24 In the year 1999 the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing W P(c) No. 134/99 for payment of those bills, but he on the assurance purportedly made by the State respondents, decided to withdraw and accordingly withdrew the writ petition with a liberty to approach this Court again if his grievances are not properly redressed. The order of this Court which is dated 4.5.99 is in the following terms :- Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in th is writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents t o pay his bills for different works executed by him pursuant to work orders issu ed by the respondents. But since the petitioner has been assured payment of the bills part by part, the petitioner wants to withdraw this writ petition and inte nds to refile the same in case he is not paid his dues. The writ petition is dismissed on withdrawal with liberty to the petitio ner to refile the same, if so advised. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the assurance made by the respondents to the petitioner, when no payments are made, the petitioner is constraint to move this Court by initiating a second round of litigation. Ms. Phukan, learned counsel for the State respondents states that a s the petitioner was obviously given an assurance by the State respondents which prompted him to withdraw the writ petition, his case can now be examined by th e State respondents and payments will be made to him if he is found to be entitl ed under the law. The suggestions made by the learned counsel for the State is n ot opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the State R espondents to examine the bills of the petitioner in accordance with law and if he is found to be entitled to payment of his bills, they shall do so within a pe riod of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order.