WP(C) 393/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioner by the present petition has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay an amount of Rs.16,64,980/- with interest contending inter alia that though pursuant to the work order dated 24.0 1.2007 issued by the Addl. Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), Eastern Zone, Dibrugarh for improvement of station Khalikamari road including construction of road side drain at Dibrugarh Town in Dibrugarh Rural Road Division for an approximate amou nt of Rs.43,05,378/-, the petitioner completed the work to the satisfaction of t he respondent authorities, the amount of Rs.16,64,980/- has not been paid. The Chief Engineer (Roads), PWD in the affidavit-in-oppo sition filed while admitting the issuance of the work order on 24.01.2007 in fav our of the petitioner for the aforesaid amount, however, has contended that as t he petitioner could not show adequate progress to the middle of September, 2007, the work order issued in his favour was cancelled and thereafter pursuant to th e order dated 16.10.2007 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.5136/2007 filed by the present petitioner, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was deducted from the petitioner ’s bill as he could not complete the work within 3(three) weeks time granted by this Court i.e. by 11.11.2007. It is also the contention of the said respondent in the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner also could not rectify certai n defects in work within the time allowed by the department for which the work h as to be withdrawn and penalty was imposed and thereafter due to non-rectificati on of the work, the then Executive Engineer finalised the work at Rs.37,61,741/- and the entire amount by deducting Rs.5,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner. Re lating to the said Rs.5,00,000/- it has also been stated that the petitioner is yet to receive Rs.4,50,000/- after deduction of Rs.50,000/- in terms of the subs equent order passed by this Court in WP(C) No.5136/2007, which shall be released as soon as the fund is made available, apart from another amount of Rs.6,70,232 /-, which payment is to be released only after necessary fund is made available by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner, it ha s been contended that the petitioner could complete the work including the recti fication work within the time allowed and, therefore, there was no occasion on t he part of the Executive Engineer to reduce the contracted amount from Rs.43,05, 378/- to Rs.37,61,741/-. According to the petitioner reduction of the said amoun t by Rs.5,43,637/- is illegal. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of argument, however, has submitted that though the petitioner claime d an amount of Rs.16,64,980/- as due and payable on the date when the writ petit ion was filed, during pendency of the writ petition certain amount has been paid and the petitioner is now entitled to an amount of Rs.5,43,637/- i.e. the amoun t by which the contract amount was reduced by the Executive Engineer on the grou nd of non-rectification of certain work. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that necessary directions may be issued to the respondent authorities to pay th e said amount as the Executive Engineer cannot reduce the contracted amount, whi ch was at Rs.43,05,378/-. The learned standing counsel appearing for the responden ts on the other hand has submitted that because of the non-completion and non-re ctification of certain defects in the work done by the petitioner, the Executive Engineer had to assess the amount payable to the petitioner at Rs.37,61,741/- t hough originally the contract was at Rs.43,05,378/- and as such the petitioner i s not entitled to the amount of Rs.5,43,637/. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that there is a dispute relating to timely completion of the work and rectification of the work, which according to the petitioner has been rectified within the time allow ed and on the other hand, according to the department such rectification was not done which necessitated the assessment of the work done by the petitioner at Rs .37,61,741/- though the original contracted amount was Rs.43,05,378/-. Such disp uted question of fact cannot conveniently be settled in a writ proceeding as the same requires examination of evidences, which can conveniently can be done by a civil court having jurisdiction over the matter. In view of the above, no relief as claimed in the writ p etition can be granted. The petitioner, however, may approach the appropriate ci vil court claiming the said amount. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.