Gitamoni Saikia vs The State Of Assam & Ors.

Heard Mr. R. K. Bhatra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of all the Respondents.

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a direction upon the Respondent Authorities to release to the Petitioner the admitted contractual amount of Rs.1,76,843/-into her bank account along with interest from the date of completion of the work till actual disbursement.

The brief facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition is that a Notice Inviting Tender was issued on 03.12.2022 for the work “Repairing and Renovation Work in the Government residential qtr. Block No.H Qtr No.303 at Notboma Housefed Complex, Notboma, Guwahati-38 (Occupied by Sri Anthony Kharmudoi)”. The Petitioner participated in the said tender process and having been found eligible, was issued the work order on 14.12.2022. The total contract value was Rs.1,77,126/-. The Petitioner completed the work on 02.01.2023 and a Completion Certificate was issued by the Respondent No.3 on 24.02.2023 certifying that the work was physically verified and found to be 100% completed in all respects. The bill amount was assessed at Rs.1,76,843/-.

The Executive Engineer (Budget Branch), Office of the Chief Engineer PWD (Building), Assam, forwarded fund requisition to the Respondent No.1 vide the communication dated 01.03.2023 seeking release of the amount of Rs.1,76,843/-. The Respondent No.1 issued the Financial Sanction on 06.12.2023 approving release of the aforesaid amount in the name of the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner did not receive the payment. On enquiry, the Petitioner was shocked to learn that the amount which was sanctioned was wrongly disbursed into a third party's account bearing Account No.3666101002546, IFSC No.CNRB0003666 which did not belong to the Petitioner.

The Petitioner immediately submitted a representation on 15.02.2025 informing about the wrongful disbursal to the Commissioner and Secretary, GAD. The Respondent No.1 forwarded the matter to the Executive Engineer cum DDO, PWD vide a letter dated 22.05.2025 directing them to examine and rectify the issue. The Respondent No.3 thereupon issued a communication to the GAD dated 02.07.2025 admitting that the work was duly awarded to the Petitioner and the Petitioner had completed the work satisfactorily. It was further mentioned vide the said communication dated 02.07.2025 that the payment was released “as per linked vendor details”.

The Respondent No.1 thereupon issued a further reminder on 16.09.2025 requesting the PWD Authorities to take necessary action. However, despite repeated correspondences, no corrective measures were taken, for which the Petitioner has approached this court.

The records reveal that this Court vide an order dated 18.02.2026 issued notice.

The Respondent No.3 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating inter-alia that the amount was received from the Finance Department through the Fin Assam portal and the payment was made to the contractor on time (F/S was also created by the GAD). However, after making the payment to the Petitioner, no response had been received from the Petitioner's end long back regarding the non-credit/payment of the FOC. Resultantly, it was not feasible and difficult for the Respondent Authority to rectify the same on time. It was further mentioned that the GAD had created the F/S where the vendor details was linked. On receipt of the FOC, the F/S number linked to the FOC and the name of the vendor mentioned in the F/S was found correct with the name of the contractor of the respective bill along with the name of the work mentioned in the F/S for which the DDO had released the payment. It was also mentioned that the vendor's details could not be verified with the F/S because only the name of the vendor was mentioned in the approved F/S.

The Petitioner filed an affidavit-in-reply and stated that the Petitioner had duly submitted all requisite credentials including her PAN details and bank particulars, pursuant to which a valid Registration Certificate was issued by the competent authority under the PWD. It was further mentioned that after issuance of such registration Certificate, payments in respect of earlier works have also been credited by the Respondent Authorities into the same linked bank account of the Petitioner. On the basis thereof, the Petitioner therefore averred that the correct bank particulars of the Petitioner were available in the records of the Respondent Authorities and therefore, the wrongful disbursal to a third-party account occurred solely due to the administrative negligence on the part of the Respondents. In that regard, the Bank Statements of the Petitioner have been enclosed as Annexure-A and Annexure-B to the affidavit-in-reply to show that from time to time due payments have been credited from the Respondent Authorities.

The Respondent No.1 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is mentioned that the Respondent No.3 was asked to take necessary action vide the communication dated 16/09/2025 towards addressal and disposal of the matter as per the conditions laid down in the FOC approved by the Finance (Budget) Department i.e. “DDO is to personally ensure that the Administrative Approval/Technical Sanction/Financial Sanction, as applicable, are in order”. The copy of the communication dated 16.09.2025 as well as the Financial Sanction in respect to the work have been enclosed as Annexures I and II to the said affidavit-in-opposition.

When the matter was listed before this Court on 22.05.2026, this Court enquired with the Respondents in the PWD as to whether the Respondent Department had the details of the bank account of the Petitioner prior to the release of the amount of Rs.1,76,843/- in their records more particularly taking into account that the Petitioner is a Class I(A) contractor.

Today, when the matter was listed, Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General has placed before this Court an instruction dated 11.08.2026 wherein it is mentioned that prior to the submission of the payment of the bill of the contractor to the Dispur Treasury, the Division did not have the account details of the payee. It was also mentioned that the bill was submitted to the Treasury for payment as per the linked bank account details of the Financial Sanction approved/issued by the concerned Department. The said instruction dated 11.08.2026 is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”.

This Court has given an anxious consideration to the respective submissions as well as has perused the materials on record.

From the perusal of the materials on record, it is apparent that the Petitioner had duly completed the work. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner was entitled to the amount of Rs.1,76,843/-inasmuch as it is even the stand of the Respondents in their affidavits that the Petitioner is entitled to the said amount. It is also apparent from the materials on record that the Financial Sanction was issued by the GAD Department on 06.12.2023 specifically in the name of the Petitioner as would be apparent from Annexure-H to the writ petition. It is also relevant to take note of the fixation of ceiling which is enclosed as Annexure-II to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.1 wherein it is stipulated as under:

It is also seen from the affidavits which have been filed by the Respondents that the Respondent No.3 alleged that the payment was made in terms with the F/S so created by the GAD Department. On the other hand, the GAD Department categorically stated that it is the responsibility of the DDO to ensure that the Administrative Approval/Technical Sanction/Financial Sanction, as applicable, are in order in addition to ensuring that there is sufficient budget provision and that the claim submitted to the Treasury is genuine.

From the above, it is therefore clear that on account of the actions on the part of the Respondents, the Petitioner had been deprived of her dues.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:

The Respondent Authorities are jointly and severally directed to transfer the amount of Rs.1,76,843/- to the Petitioner's Bank Account within 6 (six) weeks from the date a certified copy of the instant judgment is served upon the Respondent No.2. Along with the certified copy, the Petitioner shall also submit the bank details so that there is no further confusion while remitting the amount to the Petitioner.

The inter-departmental dispute between the GAD and PWD as to who was responsible for the fault of transferring the amount of Rs.1,76,843/- to an account which did not belong to the Petitioner be resolved amongst the said Departments. The resolution of such a dispute should not in any way affect the timeline so directed for disbursal of the amount to the Petitioner as directed herein above in Clause (i).

Needless to mention, the Respondent Authorities would be at liberty to take steps against the holder of the account bearing Account No.3666101002546, IFSC No.CNRB0003666, for recovery of the amount which was wrongly deposited, if so permissible under law.