WP(C) 1039/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BP KATAKEY Heard Mr. KC Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also hea rd Ms. P Borroah, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Deptt. appearing for the respondents. The petitioner by this petition prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay a sum of Rs.1,29,83,828/-(Rupees one crore twenty nine lakhs eighty three thousand eight hundred and twenty eight) only contending inter alia that pursuant to the work allotted vide order dated 15.12.2006 by the Chief Eng ineer, Water Resource Deptt. for controlling of Jiadhal river in Dhemaji Distric t, Ph-I (construction of flood wall), though he has executed part of the said wo rk worth Rs.1,29,83,828/-, the said amount has not been paid to him till date. A ccording to the petitioner, the said work order issued in his favour was subsequ ently cancelled vide order dated 15.2.2007 intimating him that the work so far e xecuted would be assessed by joint verification, which has not been done till da te. Respondent No.2, i.e. the Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department in h is affidavit-in-opposition has contended that though the aforesaid work was allo tted to the petitioner for due execution, for his failure to do so in due time, the said order was cancelled and thereafter, joint verification of work done by the petitioner was made in presence of the representatives of the petitioner pur suant to which a report was submitted by the Superintending Engineer, Lakhimpur, Water Resources Circle on 28.3.2007 to the effect that the petitioner has compl eted work worth Rs.7,11,470.70 (Rupees seven lakhs eleven thousands four hundred seventy and seventy paisa) only. Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that as respondent No.2 vide communication dated 15.2.2007 informed the petitioner t hat the work executed by him pursuant to the work order issued would be assessed by a joint verification, such joint verification has to be done, which has not been till date, and thereby depriving the petitioner from getting the value of t he work executed by him prior to the issuance of order dated 15.2.2007. Mr. Roy has, therefore, submitted that necessary direction be issued to the respondent N o.2 to conduct joint verification and to pay the amount which is found to be due and payable to the petitioner. Ms. Borooah, learned Standing Counsel placing reliance on the affidavit- in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that such joint verific ation was done in presence of the representatives of the petitioner and the repo rt was submitted on 28.3.2007 by the Superintending Engineer to the effect that petitioner has completed work worth Rs. Rs.7,11,470.70 (Rupees seven lakhs eleve n thousands four hundred seventy and seventy paisa) only. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, disputes such con duct of joint verification and the amount as assessed by the respondent authorit ies contending that such joint verification was never done and the petitioner is entitled to Rs.1,29,83,828/-(Rupees one crore twenty nine lakhs eighty three th ousand eight hundred and twenty eight) only. It appears that disputed question of fact arises in the present writ pet ition. While the petitioner is claiming the aforementioned amount which accordin g to him, he is entitled to, the same has been denied by the respondent authorit ies. On the other hand, contention of the respondents is that joint verification was done which has also been denied by the petitioner. That being the position, the disputed question of fact cannot be decided in the present writ petition as it requires examination of evidence which can conveniently be done in an approp riate suit to be instituted before an appropriate court of law. In view of the above, relief claimed in the instant writ petition cannot be granted to the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismisse d. It would, however, not preclude the petitioner from seeking remedy in an appr opriate civil court having jurisdiction over the matter. No costs.