JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. This writ petition, under Section 226 of the Indian Constitution, is preferred by the petitioner-Shri Takam Tatung, for directing the respondent authorities to release his pending bill, amounting to Rs. 75,00,000/- (Seventy five lakhs) only along with the interest thereon. 2. The factual background leading to filing of the present writ petition is adumbrated herein-below: “The petitioner is the lease holder of a Tourist Lodge situated at Vintage point (6 miles) between Itanagar and Naharlagun road, which belongs to the Department of Tourist Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The said Lodge was smaller in size and not suitable for running a comfortable business. And considering the necessity, the petitioner approached the authority of Tourism Department, for extension of the area of the said Lodge. The Department of Tourism has approved the proposal of the petitioner and thereafter, the he was asked to execute the construction work and directed him to submit the bill after completion. Accordingly, the petitioner has undertaken the construction work and completed the same. And thereafter, the measurement of the work was done by Junior Engineer of the Tourism Department, and after the assessment, an amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lacs) only is approved, vide memo order No. TOU:EW-W-Works 09-2010/25, dated 01.12.2011. But, the respondent authorities neither denied his claim nor paid the amount to him, in spite of several reminders and representation filed by him. Being highly aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.” 3. The respondent authorities’ No. 2 to 5, have filed their affidavit-in-opposition denying the claim made by the petitioner. It is stated that although the Tourist Lodge at Vintage point (6 miles) between Naharlagun and Itanagar was leased out to the petitioner, to run the cafeteria/restaurant therein, yet the Tourism Department did not approved the proposal/application filed by the petitioner at any point of time and at no point of time he was awarded any such work and at no point of time the Department of Tourism directed the petitioner to submit any bill and it has not instructed the petitioner to invest money in any such construction, which was beyond the knowledge of the Department. And it has not issued any direction for extension of the area of Tourist lodge and the so called measurement and assessment claim to have been done by Junior Engineer of the Tourism Department, assessing the amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- ( Seventy five lakhs) only cannot be construed to be an approved pending bill, which is a tentative estimate of expenditure/ investment of proposal of the petitioner. The Department has not directed Junior Engineer, Shri Jalaluddin Ahmed, to take measurement and there is no material to show any such instruction as issued by the Director to the Junior Engineer, and the said work is not reflected or recorded in any Measuring Book, which is available in the Tourism Department, and that absence of any work order in favor of the petitioner, there is no question of approval and allocation of fund, and thereof, from the competent authority under the Tourism Department. And in absence of any supportive documents other than the estimate dated 01.12.2011, which said to have been prepared by the Junior Engineer of the Department, the Case of the petitioner for payment of the pending bill cannot be considered, since payment of such unaccounted bill, without any approval, would cause unnecessary loss to the State Exchequer. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 4. In his reply to the affidavit-in-opposition, the petitioner has stated that verbal consent was given by the respondent authority to him for construction work of room in the Tourist Lodge at Vintage point (6 miles). Therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 4. In his reply to the affidavit-in-opposition, the petitioner has stated that verbal consent was given by the respondent authority to him for construction work of room in the Tourist Lodge at Vintage point (6 miles). Although, no written work order was issued to the petitioner by the respondent authority for extension of room, yet the fact remains that the petitioner has constructed additional rooms of the Tourist Lodge and the bill and measurement of aforesaid construction work was duly prepared and submitted by the Junior Engineer of Tourism Department, vide Memo No. TOU:EW-W-Work-09/2010/25, dated 01.12.2011, which prima facie shows that respondent authorities has permitted the petitioner to extend the rooms of the said Tourist Lodge, and that the Department is barred by section 70 of Indian Contract Act, 1972, to take such a plea, which provides that where a person lawfully does anything for another person or deliver anything to him not intending to do so, gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the letter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of or to restore the things so done or delivered. The petitioner has also denied the other averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition by the respondent authorities. 5. Heard Mr. M. Nibo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Pada, learned standing counsel for the State respondents. 6. Mr. Niba, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has undertaken the work of extension of the Tourist Lodge, having been consented by the respondent authorities and one Junior Engineer has taken measurement and submitted an estimated amounting of Rs. 75,00,000/- (Seventy five lakhs) and the Department has neither admitted the claim, nor make payment of the amount and as it has derived the benefit of the extended area, the respondent authorities are bound to make payment of the same in view of the Section 70 of the Contract Act. Mr. 75,00,000/- (Seventy five lakhs) and the Department has neither admitted the claim, nor make payment of the amount and as it has derived the benefit of the extended area, the respondent authorities are bound to make payment of the same in view of the Section 70 of the Contract Act. Mr. Nibo, referred also referred one Case law of this Court in Jarkar Gamlin vs. Tummar Bagra and Others, 2009 (4) GLT 314, wherein, at paragraph No. 21, this Court relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. M/s B.K. Mandal and Sons, AIR 1962 SC 779 and Union of Indian vs. J.K. Gas Plant, (1980) 3 SCC 474, held that when a contract is illegal, but, in execution of such a contract, a party has deprived benefit, the party, who derive and accepts the benefit, has to compensate the person from whom such benefit is derived and accepted. Hence, though a contract is illegal, the fact remains that if, in terms of the contract, the Government has derived benefit, or received delivery of property, the Government has to compensate the person, who delivers the property, or from whom, benefit is derived by the Government. As in that case the Government has received the benefit of delivery of property, i.e. PDS items, through carriage, from the appellant, hence, even if the contract in question, which was executed for the financial year 2005-2006, was, having been awarded without calling for tenders, illegal, the fact remains that the Government is bound to compensate the appellant for the benefits which it has derived by getting the PDS item carried from one place to another, by the present appellant. Mr. Nibo, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended to allow the petitioner. 7. Per Contra, Mr. N. Pada, learned standing counsel for the respondent Department submits that, though the petitioner has been running one cafeteria at the Tourist lodge situated at Vintage point (6 miles) in between Naharlagun and Itanagar, on the basis of lease, yet, at no point of time, he was asked to execute any work of extension of the said Tourist Lodge and no work order was issued to him and there is no record of any measurement in the Measurement Book of the Tourism Department. And, the Department has never asked the Junior Engineer to prepare any estimate, and as such the claim is illegal, and the Department is not bound to make payment to such illegal claim and that section 70 of the Contract Act, is not at all applicable in this Case and therefore, Mr. Pada contended to dismiss the petition. 8. Having heard the submission of the learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, and the documents placed on record, and the case law referred by Mr. Nibo, the learned counsel for the petitioner and I find substance in the submission so advance by the learned counsel for the respondents. 9. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a lease holder of the Tourist Lodge situated at Vintage point (6 miles), and he has been running cafeteria therein. It appears that the respondent authorities have not issued any work order to the petitioner, the factum of which is admitted by the petitioner in no uncertain terms in paragraph No. 4 of his reply to the affidavit-in-opposition in the following terms: “The construction work for extension of room in the Tourist Lodge at Vintage point (6 miles) was untaken by the petitioner, on the verbal consent given by the respondent authorities. Although there was no any written order work issued to the petitioner by the respondent authority for construction of work for extension of room, but facts remains that the petitioner has constructed the additional rooms at Tourist Lodge at Vintage point by extending the existing one without any objection from the respondent authority and the same was used by the respondent authority for their benefit.” 10. From the aforesaid averment it becomes crystal clear that the respondent authorities has not given any written work order to the petitioner for construction of work for extension of rooms of the Tourist Lodge. The petitioner’s claim is basically based upon the letter of the Junior Engineer, which he had annexed as Annexure-A, vide Memo No. TOU:EW-W-Work 09/2010/25, dated 01.12.2011, which was addressed to the Director Department of Tourism, and it is stated therein that as per the your verbal instruction, I have visited the site-Vintage point (6 miles) in between Itanagar and Naharlagun Road and noted the following points: 1. The renovation of the new RCC work is going on, in the existing building of 82 sq. mtr. A lump sum appropriate cost will be 15 lakhs. 2. RCC protection work of length 75 meters lump sum of appropriate shall be 60 lakhs. 11. But, the work is not reflected or recorded in any Measuring Book, which is supposed to be available in the office of the Department of Tourism. Thus, only on the basis of the estimation dated 01.12.2021, the payment of the pending bill cannot be considered by the respondent authorities which will cost unnecessary to the State Exchequer and Mr. Pada the learned counsel for the respondent has rightly pointed this out during hearing. There is substance in such submission and I record concurrence with the same. 12. Though, it is contended that the respondent authorities have derived the benefit of the construction work undertaken by the petitioner, and as such they are bound to make payment to the petitioner by virtue of the section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, yet, I am enable to record concurrence to such submission. 13. It is to be noted here that Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972 provides that “where a person lawfully does anything for another person or delivers anything to him not intending to do so gratuitously and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the later is bound make compensation to the formers in respect of or to restore the things done to delivered. 14. In the Case of J.K. Gas Plant (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held set out the conditions for application of section 70 Indian Contract Act the following words: (i) The first condition is that a person should lawfully do something for another person or deliver something to him. (ii) The second condition is that in doing so the said thing or delivering the said thing he must not intend to act gratuitously. (iii) The third is that the other person for whom something is done or to whom something is delivered must enjoy the benefit thereof. When these conditions are satisfied, Section 70 imposes upon the latter person, the liability to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered. 15. Herein this case, admittedly, no work order was issued to the petitioner by the respondent authorities. When these conditions are satisfied, Section 70 imposes upon the latter person, the liability to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered. 15. Herein this case, admittedly, no work order was issued to the petitioner by the respondent authorities. There is neither material on record to show that the petitioner has undertaken the construction work and completed the same, nor there is any material to show that the respondent authorities have derived any benefit from the same. Merely on the estimate, prepared by a Junior Engineer of the Tourism Department, that too without any authority of the Director of Tourism Department, respondent No. 2, the petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court so as to direct the respondent authorities to make payment of such a huge amount of sum. 16. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 would not come into aid of the petitioner. 17. In the result, I find this petition devoid of merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.