WP(C) 4274/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mrs. B. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a directio n to the respondents to release the amount of Rs. 3.75,000/- stated to be outsta nding in respect of restoration of Jaluguti Bhurbonda Laharighat Road. It is the stand of the petitioner that he having carried the renovation work in respect o f the road, he is entitled to the bill amount pertaining to the said work. It ap pears that time to time payments have been made and now the claim of the petitio ner is that thee is outstanding bill amount of Rs. 3,75,000/-. This Court by order dated 18.2.2009, while recording the claim of the pe titioner that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- has been withheld by the De puty Commissioner, Morigaon, directed the learned State Counsel to obtain instru ction. Thereafter, the matter was again taken up on 16.3.2009 and similar direct ion was issued to the learned State Counsel to obtain instruction followed by fu rther direction on 23.3.2009. However, nothing has been submitted by the learned State Counsel. There is also no appearance on behalf of the State today. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 i.e. the SDO(C), M origaon, it has been stated that the Extra Assistant Commissioner and Executive Magistrate, Morigaon had physically verified the entire work and submitted repor t that the petitioner has completed almost all the works as per plan and estimat e. But in the report, nothing was mentioned about the amount incurred in carryin g out the works. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated tha t the Revenue Department of Assam released an excess amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- as modified sanction order vide letter dated 28.10.2005. It has further been state d that the amount as claimed by the petitioner, was not sanctioned but released by the Govt. vide Bank Draft No. 136136 dated 3.11.2007. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that an amou nt of Rs. 11,25,000/- has already been paid to the petitioner as sanctioned and released by the Revenue Department vide letter dated 28.10.2005. Again an amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- released by the Revenue Department vide sanction letter dated 28.10.2005, which according to the respondent No.2 is in excess of actual entit lement of the petitioner. In view of the above, what is seen is that there is dispute relating to the claim of the petitioner. In absence of any assistance from the State respond ents, it is not possible for this Court to decide the matter. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents No. 1 & 2 to carry out an investigation into the matter and than to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. In this connection, they may also refer to the decision of the Full Be nch reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1 (Tamsher Ali Vs. State of The State of Assam & Or s), by which certain guidelines relating to payment of contractor’s bill, have b een laid down. Let the entire exercise be carried out by passing a speaking order as ex peditiously as possible but at any rate not later then 31.7.2011. Let the order be passed by the said 2 (two) authorities after due consultation between them. The petitioner may obtain a certified copy of this order and produce the same before the said two authorities for their necessary follow up action. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the writ petition is dis posed of, without however, any order as to costs.