JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. None appears for the petitioner. Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 5 being the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara and Executive Engineer, PWD of Goalpara and none appears for the remaining respondents. 2. Although, it is a writ petition of the year 2012 but the order sheet reveals that none had appeared for the petitioner when the matter was called on 06.09.2018, 21.09.2018 and again today, when the matter is taken up none appears. 3. Perused the materials available on record. Upon perusal, it has come to notice that certain legal rights of the petitioner had been violated and the same had not been adequately addressed by the respondent authorities and therefore, it is deemed appropriate to give a final consideration to the writ petition even in the absence of the leaned counsel for the writ petitioner. Inspite of waiting for some time and sending requests, the learned counsel for the Health Department failed to appear. 4. The petitioner who is a class I-A contractor registered under the PWD participated in a tender process pursuant to the tender notices dated 05.05.2006 and 22.05.2006, respectively. By the tender notice of 05.05.2006 the Executive Engineer PWD, Goalpara invited tendered bids for the work of construction/renovation/repairing of Lakhipur PHC staff quarter under the RCH fund for the year 2005-06 for an estimated cost of Rs. 23,41,990/-. By the other tender notice of 22.05.2006 tendered bids were invited for construction of brick boundary wall with Tie Beam at Lakhipur PHC also under the RCH fund, for the year 2005-06 at an estimated amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- 5. The petitioner on being the lowest bidder was allotted the work order dated 29.05.2006 in respect of tender notice dated 05.05.2006 and work order dated 09.06.2006 in respect of the tender notice dated 22.05.2006. Both the works according to the petitioner were duly completed and thereupon the final bills were submitted. 6. It is stated that a meeting was held on 22.08.2007 in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Goalpara, who was also the Chairman of the District Health Society, Goalpara. The said meeting amongst others were attended by the officers from the Health Department, the National Rural Health Mission (in short, NRHM) and Others. 7. 6. It is stated that a meeting was held on 22.08.2007 in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Goalpara, who was also the Chairman of the District Health Society, Goalpara. The said meeting amongst others were attended by the officers from the Health Department, the National Rural Health Mission (in short, NRHM) and Others. 7. As stated in Paragrah-6 of the writ petition, in the meeting a resolution was taken to the following effect: "Resolution No.5: The meeting discussed the progress of Renovation/Repairing of Lakhipur PHC with Staff quarters (Doctors quarter Grade III, Grade IV, Water Supply and Electrification) and construction of Brick Building Wall under RCH programme and directed the Joint Director, Health services, Goalpara to release fund to the tune of Rs. 31.419/- lakhs (Rupees Thirty One Thousand forty One Thousand Nine Hundred) only to the contractor concerned immediately from NRHM fund." 8. Necessary work completion certificate were also issued in favour of the petitioner. Upon completion of the work, when the bills thereof were not paid the petitioner approached this Court by way of WP(C) No.2619/2009 which was disposed of by the order dated 14.02.2011. By the said order, a direction was issued that the claim of the petitioner for payment of his bill be given a consideration in terms of the guidelines formulated by this Court in Tamsher Ali & Others Vs. State of Assam & Others, (2008) 4 GauLT 1 (FB). 9. In the said writ proceeding an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the Mission Director of NRHM, Assam wherein in Paragraph-2(ii) it was stated that the Project Director of RCH had accordingly identified the Health Institutions for up-gradation of CHC to IPHS and from CHC to FRU. In Paragraph-2(iii) it was stated that as no progress was made on the above works the NRHM had decided to take up the civil works through the Assam PWD and accordingly, the Joint Director of Health Service, who was the Member Secretary of the District Health Society, Goalpara was asked to refund the amount. 10. Be that as it may, what transpires from the said stand taken by the NRHM in the additional affidavit filed in WP(C) No.2619/2009 is that the subsequent follow up action taken by the NRHM was basically a continuation of what had earlier been done by the RCH. 11. 10. Be that as it may, what transpires from the said stand taken by the NRHM in the additional affidavit filed in WP(C) No.2619/2009 is that the subsequent follow up action taken by the NRHM was basically a continuation of what had earlier been done by the RCH. 11. In compliance of the direction of this Court in its Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2011, the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara had passed an order dated 30.03.2011, wherein the claim of the petitioner for payment of his contractor bills was rejected on the premises that his claim relates to NRHM and therefore, the head of the Department of NRHM being the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Health and Family Welfare Department, the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara is not a competent authority to pass appropriate order. The said order dated 30.03.2011 has been assailed in this writ petition. 12. It is taken note of that the tender notices dated 05.05.2006 and 22.05.2006 were issued by the Executive Engineer PWD, Goalpara Division with a copy to the Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman Construction Committee and also to the Joint Director of Health Services Member Secretary cum Member Secretary of the Construction Committee. The resolution dated 22.08.2007 of the District Health Society, Goalpara of which the Deputy Commissioner is the Chairman also clearly provides that the petitioner/contractor had duly completed his work and he is entitled to an amount of Rs. 31,41,900/-. 13. Merely, because subsequently, the said works were taken out from the purview of the RCH by the NRHM and thereupon took it upon themselves to continue the further works, the same cannot be a reason to deny payment of the contractor bill to the petitioner in respect of a work which was duly completed, to which the respondent authorities clearly admit. Further it is also taken note of that the concerned work was allotted to the petitioner by adopting a tender process. 14. Taking away the jurisdiction of RCH authority by the NRHM for there being slow progress of work cannot by itself be a reason to deny payment to a contractor of his legitimate bill for the work which he had duly completed prior to it being taken away by the NRHM. 15. 14. Taking away the jurisdiction of RCH authority by the NRHM for there being slow progress of work cannot by itself be a reason to deny payment to a contractor of his legitimate bill for the work which he had duly completed prior to it being taken away by the NRHM. 15. From the said point of view, this Court is unable to agree with the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 30.03.2011 wherein the only reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner contractor bill was that the work relates to NRHM. Accordingly, the order dated 30.03.2011 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara for passing a fresh order for making payment of the admitted amount of the petitioner in respect of the work done pursuant to the work orders dated 29.05.2006 and 09.06.2006, which admittedly was legitimately and duly completed by him. 16. The Deputy Commissioner shall do all the needful to coordinate with the NRHM authorities to ensure that the appropriate payment is made to the petitioner by doing the needful. The above requirement be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 17. Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned counsel undertakes to communicate this order to the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara for doing the needful. 18. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed. 19. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 5.