JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. S. N. Adhyapak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam as well as Mr. J. Handique, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the Respondent Authorities to grant Administrative Approval to the Scheme No.2, namely “Immediate Restoration on Nikaripara Road to give connectivity towards villages Meserbhita, Baniapara, Sonalurtal and Pachim Simulbari by providing slab culvert, including approaches and protection works at breached location, under SDRF (FDR) for the year 2022-23” allotted to the petitioner as per order dated 08.07.2022 by the District Commissioner cum Chairman, DDMA, Goalpara and release the fund to the petitioner. 3. The facts involved in the instant case as would appear from the materials on record is that in the year 2022, due to devastating flood situation, the Nikaripara Road under PWRD Goalpara West and Jaleswar Territorial Road Division, Lakhipur became quite deplorable as the road got breached in certain portions. On 05.07.2022, the Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, DDMA who is the respondent No.4 in the instant writ proceedings carried out field visit and thereupon by invoking the provisions of Section 50 (Sub-Section A and B) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act of 2005’) directed vide an order dated 08.07.2022 to take immediate measures for initiating immediate restoration work to make the condition of the roads motorable. The Executive Engineer, PWRD, Goalpara West and Jaleswar Territorial Road Division, Lakhipur was directed to ensure immediate execution and completion of the work as per the plan and estimate, observing all formalities and submit bills, completion certificate and other relevant papers/documents for processing necessary sanction and payment in due course. Further to that, vide the same order dated 08.07.2022, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Disaster Management), Goalpara, was directed to ensure placing the said Scheme before the District Disaster Management Authority in the next meeting for necessary approval under the SDRF for the year 2022-23. 4. Further to that, vide the same order dated 08.07.2022, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Disaster Management), Goalpara, was directed to ensure placing the said Scheme before the District Disaster Management Authority in the next meeting for necessary approval under the SDRF for the year 2022-23. 4. On the basis of the said communication dated 08.07.2022, the Executive Engineer, PWRD i.e. the respondent No.7 in the instant proceedings issued a communication to the respondent No.6 dated 12.07.2022 and informed that for the purpose of immediate restoration and to give connectivity towards the various villages mentioned therein, the names of two contractors were forwarded. Amongst the two contractors, one was the name of the petitioner. 5. On 13.07.2022, the respondent No.6 issued a communication directing the petitioner to carry out the work of immediate restoration of the Nikaripara Road to give connectivity towards villages Meserbhita, Baniapara, Sonalurtal and Pachim Simulguri by providing slab culvert including approaches and protection work at the breached location under SDRF (FDR) for 2022-23 and the total value of the work was mentioned as Rs.81,62,927/- as per plan and estimate and the petitioner was directed to restore the communication within seven days and complete the works within three months from the date of signing the tender agreement in F-2 form. It was also mentioned that the payment would be made subject to receipt of Administrative Approval from the Government and the availability of fund under the appropriate Head of Account. 6. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner entered into an agreement on 13.07.2022. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner immediately took steps for carrying out the construction work by investing from his own fund and completed the work. It is pertinent to mention that in the Minutes of the Meeting of the District Disaster Management Authority, Goalpara held on 21.07.2022, the work which was awarded to the petitioner was approved. It is the further case of a petitioner that in spite of various communications being written, the Administrative Approval was not granted and resultantly, the petitioner has not been paid his dues for which the petitioner had filed the instant writ petition on 15.07.2024 seeking the reliefs as above mentioned. 7. The record reveals that this Court vide an order dated 19.07.2024 issued notice and directed the respondents to file their affidavit. 8. 7. The record reveals that this Court vide an order dated 19.07.2024 issued notice and directed the respondents to file their affidavit. 8. In pursuance to the said directions, the respondent No.4, had filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 10.09.2024. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, the facts stated in the writ petition have been duly admitted. It was further mentioned that in the meeting of the Disaster District Disaster Management Authority held on 21.07.2022, the contract work which was awarded to the petitioner was approved and the same was communicated to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management (General) Department for Administrative Approval for the said Scheme vide the office letter dated 28.08.2023 but no Administrative Approval have been accorded till the date of filing of the said affidavit by the competent authority. 9. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 had also filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 21.11.2024 wherein referring to Section 50 of the Act of 2005, it was mentioned that the District Authority had invoked the said provision without the necessary approvals and as such ex-post facto approval of the competent authority i.e. the State Executive Committee was necessary for issuance of the Administrative Approval and further financial sanction. It was further mentioned that as per the approval of the Departmental Authority i.e. the competent authority of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department on 13.10.2024, the Scheme had been sent to the Assam Disaster Management Authority (ASDMA) for placing the same before the State Executive Committee in its next meeting for ex-post facto approval. It was further mentioned that subject to approval from the State Executive Committee, the Administrative Approval shall be issued after which the District Commissioner shall submit the bills along with the relevant completion certificate etc. for payment to the vendors/the contractors. 10. Subsequent thereto, on 13.03.2025, an additional affidavit was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 bringing on record certain documents. It was mentioned in the said additional affidavit that the State Executive Committee meeting was held in the conference hall of the Chief Secretary Assam on 03.02.2025 in presence of other higher officials of the various Departments including the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department and the Secretary, Public Works Department. In the said meeting, the Scheme in question was placed for ex-post facto approval for issuance of the Administrative Approval. In the said meeting, the Scheme in question was placed for ex-post facto approval for issuance of the Administrative Approval. It was further mentioned that in the said meeting, it was held that the scheme/work was neither eligible under the SDRF norms nor falls under Section 50 of the Act of 2005 and vide Resolution No.52.6, the State Executive Committee directed the Public Works Department to arrange payment for the work from others resources available with the department. This Court finds it very pertinent to quote Resolution 52.6 of the State Executive Committee Meeting as the same has relevance to the instant dispute. The Resolution 52.6 reads as under: “ 52.6 Court matter regarding restoration of roads viz. Immediate restoration of Nikaripara Road to give connectivity towards villages Maserbhita, Baniapara, Sonalurtal, Pachim Simulbari by providing slab Culvert including approaches and protection Works at breached location under SDRF (FDR) for 2022-23” for an amount of Rs.81.63 Lakhs invoking Section 50 of DM Act in Goalpara district. Resolution : SEC directed Public Works Roads Department to arrange payment for the work from other resources available with the department since the work is neither eligible under SDRF norms nor under Section 50 of DM Act 2005.” 11. This Court further finds it pertinent to take note of another affidavit which was filed on 08.08.2025 by the respondent No.5 wherein it was duly admitted that the petitioner had executed the work as per the estimated provision but payment could not be made due to non-receiving of the Administrative Approval. 12. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 13. Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam who is also the Standing Counsel of the PWD submitted that as per the work order, the petitioner had duly completed the work and upon verification it was found that the petitioner was entitled to the amount of Rs.81,63,000/-. However, on account of paucity of fund and the Administrative Approval having not been obtained by the Revenue Department, the said payment could not be meted out to the petitioner. 14. This Court has duly taken note of that at the time of need, the petitioner herein had completed the work in question in terms with the work order dated 13.07.2022 and the agreement dated 13.07.2022 out of his own funds. 14. This Court has duly taken note of that at the time of need, the petitioner herein had completed the work in question in terms with the work order dated 13.07.2022 and the agreement dated 13.07.2022 out of his own funds. This Court further takes note of that in the Resolution 52.6 as above quoted, the State Executive Committee duly admits the petitioner's entitlement however had held that the same would not come within the ambit of Section 50 of the Act of 2005 and therefore directed the PWD authorities to arrange from its own resources and make the payment to the petitioner. The said resolution was adopted on 03.02.2025. Even after that, the Respondent No.5, while filing the affidavit still insisted upon the Administrative Approval of the Revenue Authority. In the opinion of this Court, the said stands so taken by the respondent authorities are not at all fair or reasonable inasmuch as the respondent authorities had no problem in taking the services of the petitioner at the time of the need but however at the time of payment, even after a period of three years therefrom, the respondent authorities have not been in a position to make the payment. 15. It is the opinion of this Court that the actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities in not making payment to the legitimate dues of the Petitioner is not only unfair and arbitrary but also would erode the trust which an individual carrying out contractual works with the State reposes. 16. This Court further duly takes note of that the State Executive Committee had duly directed the Public Works Department to arrange payment for the work from other resources available with that Department. However, then also no payments have been made. 17. Accordingly, the instant writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) This Court directs the Respondent Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 to take immediate steps for releasing the amount of Rs.81,63,000/- to the petitioner after making such statutory deductions, if so required, within a period of 6 (six) months from the date, a certified copy of the instant order is served upon the respondent No.5. (ii) Any amount so paid during the pendency of the present writ petition towards the dues of the petitioner shall be set off while making payment to the petitioner.