JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. D. Soki, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate representing for all the State respondents. 2. By an order No.SCS-16/2002/(Pt-11)/202, dated 16.12.2003, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh in the Department of Civil Supplies, Itanagar, had accorded an extension to Shri Khyoda Apik, as PDS carriage contractor for Lower Subansiri District for a period 2004-06. As a means of convenience, Shri Khyoda Apik requested the present petitioner namely Shri Likha Soni to execute the PDS carriage contract for the Lower Subansiri District for the period 200406, as extended in favour of Shri Khyoda Apik, by the order dated 16.12.2003. 3. It is stated that Shri Khyoda Apik had executed a Power of Attorney dated 09.02.2004, in favour of the petitioner Shri Likha Soni. Be that as it may, upon completing the work the petitioner submitted the bill dated 17.12.2007 to the Director Food & Civil Supplies, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, for an amount of Rs.1,39,04,642/-(Rupees one crore thirty nine lakhs four thousand six hundred forty two). The bill contains the details of the transportation work that the petitioner claims to have done. But as the bill was not paid, the petitioner made a representation dated 15.03.2018, to the Secretary, Food & Civil Supply, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar and the Director, Food & Civil Supply, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun, respectively. When the representation was not given its consideration, the petitioner instituted a writ petition No.WP(C)173(AP)/2018, wherein, the order dated 11.04.2018, was passed. In the order of 11.04.2018, the Court had taken note that the claim of the petitioner for a bill amounting to Rs.1,39,04,642/-(Rupees one crore thirty nine lakhs four thousand six hundred forty two) was not paid and upon non-payment of the bill the petitioner had also submitted a representation dated 15.03.2018. 4. It is taken note that in the writ petition No.WP(C)173(AP)/2018, it was the claim of the petitioner that the bill amounting to Rs.1,39,04,642/- (Rupees one crore thirty nine lakhs four thousand six hundred forty two) was not paid and secondly, in respect thereof, he had submitted a representation claiming for the amount. 4. It is taken note that in the writ petition No.WP(C)173(AP)/2018, it was the claim of the petitioner that the bill amounting to Rs.1,39,04,642/- (Rupees one crore thirty nine lakhs four thousand six hundred forty two) was not paid and secondly, in respect thereof, he had submitted a representation claiming for the amount. In the aforesaid circumstances in the order dated 11.04.2018, the Secretary, Food & Civil Supply, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, was directed to give a consideration to the said representation with a proper response to the grievance raised by the petitioner for the payment of the outstanding bill. The direction of the Court is explicitly clear that it is not only a requirement for consideration of the representation but also to consider the grievances of non-payment of the outstanding bills. 5. In the aforesaid circumstance the order dated 05.07.2018, was passed by the Secretary, to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, in the Food & Supplies Department. By the said order the Secretary arrived at his conclusion that out of the claimed amount of Rs.1,39,04,642/-(Rupees one crore thirty nine lakhs four thousand six hundred forty two), the petitioner would be entitled for a payment of Rs.57,84,473/- (Rupees fifty seven lakhs eighty-four thousand four hundred seventy three), and in the order it was further provided that the petitioner was recommended for the said amount of Rs.57,84,473/-(Rupees fifty seven lakhs eighty-four thousand four hundred seventy three) against the amount that would have been admissible as per the State Government approved carriage rate for a sum of Rs.1,12,92,813/- (Rupees one crore twelve lakhs ninety two thousand eight hundred thirteen). 6. In the order the Secretary refers to the earlier re-verification done by the Scrutiny Board constituted for the purpose in the year 2014. In the view of the Scrutiny Board the petitioner would be entitled to Rs.57,84,473/-(Rupees fifty seven lakhs eighty-four thousand four hundred seventy three), as against the admissible amount as per the State Government approved carriage rate for Rs.1,12,92,813/-(Rupees one crore twelve lakhs ninety two thousand eight hundred thirteen) and that the petitioner would be held entitled for the amount of Rs.1,12,92,813/-(Rupees one crore twelve lakhs ninety two thousand eight hundred thirteen), as per the State Government approved rate, subject to certain rectification of the shortcomings as stated therein. The shortcomings included the requirement to furnish all the bills; that only one copy of the bill was found available whereas duplicate and triplicate bills are required for the payment; two different rates/distance notifications are available dated 21.03.2001, and another dated 02.07.2001, for the period 2004-05 & 2005-06, and that the notification of 21.03.2001, was not enclosed to the bills, and accordingly, it was provided that the said aspect regarding the two notifications was required to be sorted out; that there is no mention of the carriage contractor in some of the monthly sub allotment/FCI drawal authority order; the power of Attorney of Shri. Khyoda Apik to the petitioner Shri Likha Soni was required to be enclosed to the bills. 7. After stating the aforesaid, the order dated 05.07.2018 provided that the bills should be returned back to the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District for re-verification and rectification with its original records to meet up all the shortcomings. The shortcomings as recorded in the order dated 05.07.2018, does not indicate that the bill of the petitioner was fraudulent in any manner, or that the petitioner had submitted a bill for certain work he has actually not performed. Most of the shortcomings appears to be technical in nature which the authority themselves can sort it out from their own records. 8. Be that as it may, the amount claimed by the petitioner was not rejected by the order dated 05.07.2018, but it was sent for the re-verification with rectification to include the documents and materials which were indicated to be a shortcomings. The same by itself in the view of the Court cannot be a reason not to pay the contractors bill of the petitioner. If otherwise, the petitioner had actually performed and completed the work concerned, it is for the respondent authorities to verify from their own records and make up the shortcomings which are indicated in the order dated 05.07.2018. Further, the bill of the petitioner contains in detail the work he had performed and therefore, it would be for the respondents to verify from their own records, as to whether actually the petitioner had performed such work or not. If the respondent upon verification record arrives at any conclusion that the petitioner had not actually performed those works and it is a fictitious bill, then an appropriate reasoned order can be passed. If the respondent upon verification record arrives at any conclusion that the petitioner had not actually performed those works and it is a fictitious bill, then an appropriate reasoned order can be passed. But by taking some technical view of shortcomings here and there which can be rectified by the Department itself, it cannot be accepted to be a reason not to pay the contractors bill. 9. We also take note of the objection of maintainability of the writ petition being raised by Mr. D. Soki, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate. According to the learned counsel these are the bills of the year 2007, in respect of works performed in the year 2004-05 and 2005-06, and therefore it does not have any merit for further consideration of payment. To substantiate his claim Mr. D. Soki, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate refers to a pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the Union of India and others Vs M.K. Sarkar, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 59 . The decision in M. K. Sarkar (supra) pertains to a service matter dispute wherein, after a long period of 22 years an employee made a claim for pension in lieu of the CPF benefit to which he had already enjoyed. In such circumstance the Supreme Court was of the view that it was a stale claim and the issue does not merit consideration. 10. In the instant case, firstly, it is not a matter which comes under the service law, and secondly, it is a matter of a claim which have been periodically entertained and admitted by the authorities from time to time. Secondly, the petitioner had already raised his claim for payment of the contractor bill in the writ petition No.WP(C)/173(AP)/2018, but no such objection of maintainability was raised. The present writ petition flows only from the consequential order passed by authorities pursuant to the order of this Court passed in the writ petition No.WP(C)/173(AP)/2018. In the circumstance, as the question of delay and laches and non-maintainability of the petition was not raised in WP(C)/173(AP)/2018, we have to understand that the said objection would be barred by the principles of constructive resjudicata, inasmuch as or such issues raised or which ought to have been raised in an earlier petition, if not raised is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata to be raised in the subsequent petition. 11. 11. Accordingly, the objection of delay and laches cannot be accepted. The respondent are directed to carry forward the order dated 05.07.2018, passed by the Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh in the Food and Supply Department and rectify from the official records of the shortcomings recorded in the said order, and after rectification the Secretary to verify from the official records as to whether the petitioner had actually carried out the contract work, the details of which is provided in the bill itself. If the records reveal that the petitioner had actually carried out the work, and the bills are in order as per the rates, appropriate order for payment be passed by the Secretary. If the Secretary is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the payments, appropriate reasoned order be passed. 12. The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above.