WP(C) 2326/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. K. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.J. Ghosh, lear ned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. None appears for th e respondent Nos.3 to 5 today. The petitioner by the present petition has prayed for a direction to the respond ent authorities to pay a sum of Rs.6,56,142/-, which, according to the petitione r, is due and payable to him for the works executed pursuant to the work order i ssued. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Dibru garh, the respondent No.2, who is required to make the payment, it has been stat ed that though the Executive Engineer, PWD, Rural, Roads submitted the progress report cum demand of fund on 25th August, 2008, since the work was not satisfact orily completed, the report was returned to the Executive Engineer, PWD, Rural R oads for taking necessary action for satisfactory completion of the work, for wh ich the amount, as claimed by the petitioner, could not be paid. It has also be en submitted that as per the rules, the necessary verification was done by the D eputy Commissioner’s office and found that the work was not satisfactorily done. The communication dated 12th February, 2009 issued by the Additional Deputy Com missioner, Relief, Dibrugarh to the Executive Engineer in that respect is annexe d to the affidavit-in-opposition. Since the claim of the petitioner has been disputed by the respondent No.2 by fi ling the affidavit, such disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in the wr it proceeding and hence the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court ha ving jurisdiction over the matter seeking redressal of his grievances.