WP(C) 1724/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H. BARUAH Heard Mr. A.J. Rajkhowa, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned standing counsel, Election Commission who accepts notice on beha lf of respondents 1 and 2. Also heard Mr. Talukdar, learned Addl. Government Adv ocate appearing for respondents 3 and 4, who accepts notice on their behalf. As agreed to by the counsel of the respective party, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage. The primary grievance of the writ petitioner is that despite completion of the p rinting works per order No. SEC.94/2006/Pt/53 dated 14/12/2007 (Annexure-B), the respondent authorities are not ready to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.2,20,0 20/- and are sitting over the matter negligently for which the petitioner is fac ing financial crunch. During the course of argument, Mr. Rajkhowa, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner fully executed the work to the satisfaction o f the authority and the bill amount stood at Rs. 19,94,020/- of which Rs.17,74,0 00/- has been released in his favour. The remaining amount of Rs.2,20,020/- is s till pending with the respondent authorities. It is also brought to the notice o f the Court by Mr. Rajkhowa that in regard to completion of the printing works s atisfactorily, a certificate was issued by the State Election Commission where i t has been indicated that the printing works was completed within the stipulated time to the full satisfaction of the Election Commission. Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent 1 an d 2 submits before this Court that the petitioner being the holder of the work o rder, he is entitled to the amount for the works executed. There is no denial fr om the respondents that the writ petitioner is not entitled to the outstanding a mount to the tune of Rs.2,20,020/-. Mr. M.U. Mahmud prays this Court to issue a direction to the respondent authorities to release the amount after verification of the petitioner’s entitlement. It is further submitted by him that that the D eputy Commissioner concerned may be directed to verify the claim of the petition er and make payment accordingly. On the facts appearing in the face of the records and the submissions advanced b y the counsel of both the parties, this Court finds no obstacle in issuing a dir ection to the Deputy Commissioner Hailakandi, the respondent No.4 to verify the claim of the petitioner and make payment. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner Hailakandi district is directed to verify t he claim of the petitioner and to pay accordingly. Such exercise shall be undert aken within a period of 2 months from today. With this direction, writ petition stands disposed of.