WP(C) 5259/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA The matter relates to alleged non-payment of Contractor’s bill for const ruction of processing-cum-store room amounting to Rs. 60,000/- which according t o the petitioner he is entitled to for the contract work he has carried out with the respondents. I have heard Mrs. R. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. R . Chakraborty, learned State Counsel. According to Mrs. Borah, the petitioner has carried out the contract wor k as indicated in Annexure - 1 to the writ petition. Ms. Chakraborty, learned S tate Counsel, on the other hand submits that the matter needs examination by the respondents. In view of the above and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the par ties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ex amine the claim of the petitioner and upon such examination, if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to the aforesaid amount of Rs. 60,000/- for the cont ract work which he allegedly carried out under the respondents in terms of Annex ure-1 series orders, the same shall be disbursed to the petitioner. The entire e xercise shall be carried out within a period of four months from the date of rec eipt of the certified copy of this order which the petitioner shall furnish to t he respondents along with a copy of the writ petition and its enclosures. The respondents may also verify as to whether the petitioner executed th e works in question at all and if so, whether as per the specification of the wo rk order and to the satisfaction of the respondents and as to whether any deduct ion is required to make. The respondents may also examine as to whether the claim made by the pet itioner is barred by limitation. Writ petition is disposed of