WP(C) 2278/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY JUDGEMENT AND ORDER B.K. SHARMA, J 1. These writ petitions are before us in view of the reference made by the learned Single Judge while dealing with the writ petitions. The matter involves the claim of the petitioners for payment of undisputed amounts involved in the b ills submitted by the petitioners on conclusion of the contractual works pursuan t to various work orders issued by the respondents to the petitioners. 2. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Manipur vs. Moirangthem Chaob a Singh reported in 2006 (1) GLT 19 held that the writ petitions pertaining to undisputed security deposits and undisputed bills after successful completion of contract works are not maintainable having regard to the Arbitration clause in the contract. It was held that the parties are not entitled to have recourse to any remedy except Arbitration. 3. On the other hand in a later decision reported in 2007 (2) GLT 173 (J. D eep Chemicals & Fertilizers (M/s) vs. State of Tripura) another Division Bench of this Court dealing with the same issue held that exhaustion of alternative re medy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. Having found that there was no justifiable reason for withholding of payment to the amount agreed to be paid under the contract, writ petition was held to be maintainable. 4. It appears that the aforesaid decision in Moirangthem Chaoba Singh (supr a) was carried on appeal before the Apex Court by way of Special Leave of Appeal (Civil) No. (S) 6203/06 and the same was disposed of by order dated 08.01.07 w ithout deciding the question of law involved and the same was left open. The ord er was so passed when it was brought to the notice of the Apex Court that the am ount involved had already been refunded. In that view of the matter, the Special Leave Petition was held to have become infructuous. 5. In all the writ petitions it is the case of the petitioners that they ha ving successfully completed the contractual works entrusted to them are entitled to the bill amounts which they have submitted in terms of the work orders, agre ements etc. It is the grievance of the petitioners that although they have raise d the bills, the respondents have ignored the same, but on the other hand have e ntertained the bills submitted by some other contractors. They have filed the wr it petitions alleging discrimination and arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the respondents in the matter of making payments to the contractors. Accordi ng to the petitioners since there is no dispute in respect of the bill amounts, the respondents are duty bound to clear the same without any discrimination. 6. In the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondents, falling back on the decision in Moirangthem Chaoba Singh (supra), it has been contended that th e writ petitions are not maintainable. Except making the general statement of me thodology adopted towards awarding the work orders, executing of agreement cont aining the clause of arbitration etc., the respondents have not disputed the cl aim of the petitioners. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that the amount involved in their bills are undisputed, go unrefuted. The only question which ar ises for consideration is as to whether even in case of such undisputed amounts, the parties should be directed to take recourse to arbitration etc. throwing th em out of the writ jurisdiction. 7. These writ petitions came before us at a time when a batch of writ petit ions and two writ appeals were placed before us pertaining to the similar grieva nce of non-payment of contractual bills which the contractors had submitted upon execution of the contractual works/ supply orders etc. Be it stated here that t wo writ appeals and the batch of writ petitions were in respect of various depar tments of the Govt. of Assam. It was noticed that all the writ petitions initial ly were for recovery of money claimed to be due to the petitioners on the foot o f a contract. It was brought to our notice that by judgment and order dated 31.0 5.05 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3354/04 (Jatin Pathak vs. State of Assam and others), learned Single Judge of this Court by way of reconciling the issue involved in such matters and to secure the interest of all concerned and also to ensure an equitable distribution of Govt. fund in discharge of admitted outstanding dues f or the citizens, disposed of the writ petition with the following directions. Be it stated here that the learned Single Judge was dealing with such claims perta ining to only one department of the Govt. of Assam, i.e. PWD. (1) The public Works Department of the State of Assam shall prepare a list o f contractors, in each of its Division, to whom money is admitted to be due on a ccount of the contract works performed whether under orders of the Court or othe rwise. (2) Such lists will be prepared Division-wise in strict chronological order on the basis of the date on which payment is due. (3) In drawing of the aforesaid list, the names of the contractors may be ar ranged under the separate Heads of Accounts that may be involved. (4) That funds received by the Public Works Department under the particular Heads of Accounts and against the Division will be applied for discharge of the admitted dues in the order in which the list is prepared and maintained. (5) All the contractors who claim money to be due will be a liberty to have their names registered in the concerned Division, which registration will be eff ected by the concerned authority after due v verification of their entitlement t o the payment claimed. 8. During the course of hearing of the aforesaid batch of writ petitions an d the two writ appeals, all the Govt. departments of the Govt. of Assam agreed t o follow the aforesaid guideline issued in Jatin Pathak case subject, however, t o the condition that all claims for payment of admitted outstanding dues are lo dged before the competent authority within a period of three years from the date of payment becoming due. 9. During the course of hearing of the present writ petitions, Mr. K. Singh , learned Advocate General, Manipur was requested to obtain instruction as to wh ether the Govt. of Manipur is agreeable to follow the guidelines formulated in J atin Pathak’s case. The learned counsel for the petitioners also made it known t hat the petitioners would have no objection if the guidelines in Jatin Pathak’s case are followed by the Govt. of Manipur. 10. Pursuant to the aforesaid developments, the Govt. of Manipur has filed a n additional affidavit on 11.08.08 inter alia stating that the Govt. of Manipur has also reconsidered the matter relating to the admitted outstanding dues arisi ng out of execution of contractual works taking into account the guidelines form ulated in Jatin Pathak’s case. It is stated in this affidavit that a meeting wa s held on 30.07.08 under the chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur a nd the same was attended by the officers of the various departments of the Govt. of Manipur to formulate the stand of the State Govt. 11. In the aforesaid meeting while affirming the earlier stand of the State Govt. regarding non-maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of th e Constitution of India for enforcement of contractual works leading to an oblig ation arising out of agreement, it was agreed that certain guidelines need to be formulated for payment of admitted outstanding dues arising out of execution of contractual works in the same line as that of the guidelines formulated in Jati n Pathak’s case. The guidelines formulated in the meeting are as follows: i) The departments shall prepare a Division-wise list of contractors to who m money is admitted to be due on account of authorized contract works executed a nd completed satisfactorily. ii) The lists shall provide (a) name of work; (b) name of agency; (c) sancti oned estimate; (d) work order no. & date; (e) date of commencement of execution of work : (f) date of completion of works; (g) date of submission of claims. iii) Such lists will be prepared by every Departments and Divisions (in Engin eering Departments) in strict chronological order on the basis of the date on wh ich payment is due. iv) In drawing the aforesaid list, the names of the contractors may be arran ged under the relevant Heads of Accounts that may be involved. v) The authorized work should be within the Funds available under the Depar tmental Budget for the particular Heads of Accounts. vi) The claims of Registered Contractors only shall be entertained. vii) The funds available for discharge of pending liabilities will be earmark ed within the head of Account separately in consultation with the Finance Depar tment. 12. Apart from the aforesaid general guidelines formulated in the meeting, i t was also resolved to follow the following principles towards processing and di scharging the admitted liabilities: i) All claims will have to be certified as admitted liability by the Head o f Department/Chief Engineer concerned. ii) Any claims will be entertained only if it is lodged before competent aut horities within a period of 3 (three) years from the date of payment becoming du e. iii) The liabilities will be disposed of on a first come first served basis. 13. We have also considered the materials on record. Although the issue ini tially raised was about maintainability of the writ petitions in respect of paym ent of contractual bills, but having regard to the agreement arrived at by and b etween the parties and the matter essentially being one of the admitted amount o f contractual bills, we need not deal with the issue in this proceeding. 14. As in the case of the batch of writ petitions and two writ appeals perta ining to the Govt. of Assam, in the instant case also there was similar controve rsy as to what would constitute payment becoming due . Eventually it was agree d that the same shall be construed depending upon the terms and conditions of th e individual work orders and/or the contract and as may be applicable under the law. We are also of the opinion that the writ jurisdiction essentially being th e one by way of Public Law Remedy, the strict principle of limitation of three y ears as may be applicable as per the provisions of Limitation Act may not be app licable with its rigidity, rigor and inflexibility. This question will also hav e to be considered in the context of the condition in terms of which all claims of payment of outstanding dues would be entertained for consideration provided t he same are admitted by the respective departments. As per the said Clause the admission of liability shall have to be certified by the head of the Department/ Chie Engineer concerned. 15. It may so happen that after submission of claims before the competent au thority within the specified period of three years from the date of the payment becoming due, the claim is entertained and/or admitted by the prescribed authori ties after expiry of three years from the date the payment becoming due . In s uch an eventuality, even on the principles underlying limitation, the strict app lication of limitation of three years from the date the payment becoming due m ay not be applicable. The expression, within a period of three years from the date of the payment becoming due , apart from being construed as per the terms a nd conditions of the work orders, will also have to be construed in that context . The learned counsel for the parties agreed that the said expression shall be c onstrued as per law as well. 16. Since the Govt. of Manipur has agreed for disposal of the writ petition s in terms of their broad agreement to abide by the guidelines formulated in Jat in Pathak’s case with the aforesaid terms and conditions, we need not answer the question formulated as to whether the forum under Article 226 of the Constituti on of India is appropriate to adjudicate the claims relating to payment of contr actual bills and whether the writ petitions are required to be entertained in su ch cases. In view of the broad agreement arrived at by and between the parties, we dispose of all the writ petitions in terms of the agreement. 17. The writ petitions are answered in the above manner and stand disposed o f, leaving the parties to bearing their own costs.