Gauhati HC Directs BTC to Verify and Pay Outstanding Rs 3.20 Crore to Contractor Within One Month

The Gauhati High Court directed Bodoland Territorial Council authorities to verify work completion and release Rs 3.20 crore in outstanding dues to a contractor under Article 226, applying the Full Bench ruling in Tamsher Ali v State of Assam.

The Gauhati High Court, in a writ petition filed by a contractor from Kokrajhar, directed three senior officers of the Public Works Department of the Bodoland Territorial Council to verify whether the contracted construction work was completed as specified and, if so, to release the unpaid balance of Rs 3,20,17,538/- within one month. Justice Devashis Baruah, sitting singly, disposed of the petition with these directions on 17 August 2026, invoking the payment framework laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Tamsher Ali and Others v State of Assam and Others, reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1.

The Construction Contract and Unpaid Balance

Sudhang Kumar Brahma, resident of Ward No. 5, Mijing Nwgwr, Kokrajhar, was awarded a work order on 29 August 2017 for the “Construction of Proposed Office Building for all CHC Office Complex at Kokrajhar District.” The contract was issued under the One Time Special Grant for the year 2017–2018, following Administrative Approval and Technical Sanction by the competent BTC authorities and a successful bidding process. The bid amount was Rs 10,62,31,000/-.

According to the petitioner, the work was completed and the BTC authorities issued both a Completion Certificate and a Handing Over and Taking Over Certificate acknowledging receipt of the completed structure. On that basis, the petitioner submitted bills totalling Rs 8,02,86,449/-. Of this, Rs 4,82,68,911/- was paid, leaving Rs 3,20,17,538/- outstanding.

The petitioner sent a representation dated 9 August 2024 to the Executive Engineer, PWD, BTC, Kokrajhar, seeking release of the balance. That representation did not result in payment. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

BTC's Position on Verification

Ms. B. Bora, Standing Counsel for the BTC, did not dispute the existence of the work order or the certificates. Her submission, however, was that whether the petitioner had completed the work strictly in terms of the work order remained a matter requiring formal verification by the respondent authorities. She argued that only after such verification could the actual entitlement of the petitioner be ascertained.

This position — that verification had not yet occurred — shaped the relief the Court ultimately granted. Rather than directing immediate payment of the claimed Rs 3.20 crore, the bench treated the verification step as a necessary precondition and built the timeline around it.

The Court's Direction and the Tamsher Ali Framework

Justice Baruah took the view that the interest of justice was met by directing the BTC authorities to carry out the verification and then determine the exact amount, if any, to which the petitioner was entitled. The Court specifically directed Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 — the Joint Secretary PWD BTC, the Additional Chief Engineer-cum-Director PWD BTC, and the Executive Engineer PWD BTC Kokrajhar — to undertake this exercise.

For the manner of payment upon a positive finding, the Court applied the Full Bench ruling in Tamsher Ali and Others v State of Assam and Others, 2008 (4) GLT 1. Any amount found due to the petitioner is to be paid in terms of that judgment. The Tamsher Ali decision, cited as binding precedent from a Full Bench of this Court, thus governs the modalities of how a contractor's verified dues are to be discharged by the State or its instrumentalities in Assam.

Timeline for Compliance

The Court fixed a tight deadline. The verification must be completed within one month from the date a certified copy of the order is served upon Respondent No. 1, the Bodoland Territorial Council represented by its Principal Secretary. Payment, if any amount is found due, must follow in terms of the Tamsher Ali judgment.

Outcome

The writ petition WP(C)/617/2025 was disposed of on 17 August 2026. No further date was fixed. The matter is not pending; compliance with the directions rests with the Joint Secretary PWD BTC, the Additional Chief Engineer-cum-Director PWD BTC, and the Executive Engineer PWD BTC Kokrajhar, within the one-month window triggered by service of the certified copy on the Principal Secretary, BTC.