JUDGMENT : PRANJAL DAS, J. The petitioner is Ms. Hongkam Construction, stated to be a Govt. Regd. Contractor and supplier. Five respondents had been impleaded in the writ petition, out of which respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are State respondents of Nagaland Government and respondent No. 5 is the Union of India represented by Secretary, Ministry of Tourism. The petitioner has come before this Court with a grievance that pursuant to work order dated 21.12.2013, he has executed works on behalf of Government of Nagaland, Department of Tourism in a Centrally funded scheme and though he has secured a part payment of Rs.11,11,263/- by way of a running bill with regard to the said works; he is yet to receive the remaining amount of Rs. 29,311,737/- out of a total bill of Rs. 40.43 Lakhs, with regard to the said work. Aggrieved by the same, he has filed this writ petition seeking a direction for payment of the remaining amount out of a total bill of Rs. 29,31,737/-. 2. The facts in a little more detail as contended by the writ petitioner are that the Tourism Department of Nagaland Government had approved a project for a construction of integrated Tourist Destination at Angphang and accordingly government approval was accorded vide No. TRSM (C)- 5/66/2010 dated 20.12.2013, which was conveyed to the Tourism Directorate of the State. It is further contended that pursuant thereof, the Additional Director Tourism issued work order No. TOUR/ENGG-628/213- 14 dated 21.12.2013 awarding the work for construction of the Integrated Tourist Destination at Angphang (SH:Construction of Budget Accommodation Part-1) to the present writ petitioner for an amount of Rs. 40.43 Lakhs and the construction work was to be completed within 18 months; that, subsequently vide Authorization dated 04.03.2014, the proprietor of the petitioner firm authorized the manager who is Wanmei Konyak representing present writ petitioner to commence and execute the work and also authorized him to represent the firm before the government, including receiving of all bills etc. 40.43 Lakhs and the construction work was to be completed within 18 months; that, subsequently vide Authorization dated 04.03.2014, the proprietor of the petitioner firm authorized the manager who is Wanmei Konyak representing present writ petitioner to commence and execute the work and also authorized him to represent the firm before the government, including receiving of all bills etc. The aforesaid letter dated 21.12.2013 of Additional Director Tourism has been annexed as Annexure- A and the construction firm authorization letter dated 04.03.2012 is marked as Annexure-B. It is further contended by the writ petitioner that the firm completed the work within the stipulated time and as per specification and to this effect the Sub-divisional Officer (Civil), Angjangyang issued verification report vide letter No. GA/ANGJ/DEV- 7/2017-18 stating that the work was completed satisfactorily. The said verification report is stated to be dated 19.04.2021 and annexed as Annexure-C. It is stated that a part bill of Rs. 11,11,263/- were released to the petitioner in May, 2014 out of final bill of Rs. 40.43 Lakhs. It is contended that despite completion of the work and passage of several years, the remaining bill amount has not been paid to the petitioner, due to which the petitioner filed an RTI application, which was replied to vide letter dated 29.05.2023 bearing No. TOUR/ENGG/RTI/2022-2023/006. It is contended that the RTI replied fairly indicated that the amount of Rs.11,11,263/- was released in May, 2014 and in this regard the petitioner contends that therefore the outstanding total amount of Rs. 40.43 Lakhs is an admitted liability of the respondents. The writ petitioner further states that, several requests for payment of remaining bill was made without success and eventually he submitted the representation dated 24.08.2023 to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for the remaining payment. 3. Copy of the RTI reply dated 29.05.2023 is annexed as Annexure-D and the petitioner’s representation dated 24.08.2023 as Annexure-E. The writ petitioner further contends that pursuant to his representation, the respondent No. 3 furnished a reply that prior to releasing of the second installment the Union Tourism Ministry vide letter dated 13.02.2017 delinked the projects under PITTC Scheme from Union support and directed the State Government to implement these from its own resources. Copies of this documents having annexed as Annexure X series. 4. Copies of this documents having annexed as Annexure X series. 4. In the backdrop of these projected facts and circumstances, the writ petitioner contends that the remaining bill amount of Rs.29,31,737/- constitute an admitted liability of the respondents and in terms of the law governing the field, non-payment of the same constitutes an arbitrary action on the part of the State respondents and that, therefore he seeks invocation of writ jurisdiction of this Court for a suitable direction to the respondents to pay the said amount. 5. The State respondents being respondent Nos. 1 to 4, have filed an affidavit-in-opposition. The contentions made therein are- that petitioner violated the terms of the contract by engaging a representative though it was clearly stipulated that no power of attorney would be accepted; that, it is stated in paragraph 7 of the affidavit that upon joint physical verification of the construction of Budget Accommodation Part 1, the work was stated in the report to be not as per the original plan of the drawing issued to the contractor. A copy of physical verification report has been annexed as Annexure B collectively; that, it is stated in paragraph 10 that the Tourism Department has already taken up with the Union Tourism Ministry regarding continued funding of the uncompleted projects under PIDDC scheme; after the schemes were delinked by the Union Ministry leaving the State Government to fund the same. The respondent No. 5 being the Tourism Department of the Government of India also filed an affidavit in which it was stated that vide the Ministry’s letter dated 13.02.2017 which is annexed as Annexure 1 of the affidavit, the PIDDC scheme has been delinked from Union support and directed to be implemented from the State Government resources and therefore, the delay on the part of the State government in releasing any outstanding amount to the petitioner would be unfair. It is also contended that the respondent now has no role to play in the matter. 6. With regard to a query from this Court, the State respondents (respondent Nos. 1 to 4) filed an additional affidavit stating that the dependence of the scheme up on central funding was verbally informed to the petitioner. It is also contended that the respondent now has no role to play in the matter. 6. With regard to a query from this Court, the State respondents (respondent Nos. 1 to 4) filed an additional affidavit stating that the dependence of the scheme up on central funding was verbally informed to the petitioner. With regard to the aforesaid pleadings of the respondent side, the petitioner filed an affidavit-in-reply wherein it was contended that no power of attorney was issued in respect of the construction works but the petitioner being an employee of the company was authorized to execute affairs of the contract on behalf of the company and make necessary correspondence and therefore, it is denied that the proprietor did not handle the affairs of the contractual work. It is also contended that despite the petitioner completing the work, paucity of funds cannot be taken as a ground to withhold payment of bills and for remaining amount of Rs.29,31,737/- the petitioner has contended in the reply that the outstanding bill is an admitted liability and it should be directed to be paid inexercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsels, Mr. Moa Jamir for the petitioner; learned senior Government Advocate, Ms. S. Mere for the respondent Nos.1 to 4; Mr. Yangerwati learned CGSC for the respondent No. 5. The petitioner counsel submits that he had acted as per the work order of the government and executed the work investing his resources and therefore non-payment of the remaining amount has caused significant prejudice. The learned counsel submits that if the respondents contend that the entire work has not been completed as yet, they may conduct a fresh verification and make payment for the works under taken. 8. The learned counsel for respondent No. 5 supporting his pleadings, submits that the Union Government has already informed the State government about the delinking of the fund and therefore, now it is up to the State Government to do the needful. 9. The learned senior Government Advocate, Ms. S. Mere also support the affidavits-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents pertaining to Nagaland Government and submits that the delinking of the scheme has created serious problems for the State government and the State government has also taken up the matter with the Union tourism department at the centre. 9. The learned senior Government Advocate, Ms. S. Mere also support the affidavits-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents pertaining to Nagaland Government and submits that the delinking of the scheme has created serious problems for the State government and the State government has also taken up the matter with the Union tourism department at the centre. Secondly, the learned counsel also supports the contentions that the work executed also did not turn out to be as per the specification, as revealed by the verification report annexed with the pleading. 10. I have perused the pleadings of the parties, the documents annexed and other relevant matters; I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels on both the sides. 11. It is well settled that when a monetary of a claim contractor with regard to executed works is by way of an admitted liability of the State/Government, the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised to direct payment of such contractual bills/claims. In this regard, reference maybe made to two decisions of this Court, namely, Jatin Pathak Versus State of Assam (WP(C)./8995/2024), 2018 (3) GLT 438 and a full bench decision of this Court in Tamsheer Ali and etc versus State of Assam and others , 2008 SSC Online GAU 35. 12. Relevant portions of Jatin Pathak (Supra) can be gainfully reproduced here under. “Accordingly, it is ordered that the following directions shall govern this particular case as well as the course of action that the Department shall now adopt in deciding all similar claims that may be pending before it. (1) The Public Works Department of the State of Assam shall prepare a list of contractors, in each of its Divisions to whom money is admitted to be due on account of the contract works performed whether under orders of the Court or otherwise. (2) Such lists will be prepared Division-wise in strict chronological order on the basis of the date on which payment is due. (3) In drawing of the aforesaid list, the names of the contractors may be arranged under the separate Heads of Accounts that may be involved. (4) The funds received by the Public Works Department under the particular Heads of Accounts and against the Division will be applied for discharge of the admitted dues in the order in which the list is prepared and maintained. (4) The funds received by the Public Works Department under the particular Heads of Accounts and against the Division will be applied for discharge of the admitted dues in the order in which the list is prepared and maintained. (5) All the contractors who claim money to be due will be at liberty to have their names registered in the concerned Division, which registration will be effected by the concerned authority after due verification of their entitlement to the payment claimed.” Further, para 14 of Tamsher Ali (Supra) can also be gainfully reproduced here under. “14. In the affidavit, copy of the minutes of the meeting has been annexed. It has been stated in the affidavit that pursuant to the consensus arrived at in the meeting held on 19-3-2008, the Govt. of Assam, on principle has agreed to adopt the guidelines issued by this Court in Jatin Pathak's case in the matter of processing the claims, which are admitted to be due, subject however, to the following conditions: “i) All claims for payment of outstanding dues would be entertained for consideration provided the same are admitted by the respective departments. The admissions of liability shall have to be certified by the respective Chief Engineer in respect of Works Departments and in respect of other departments by the Head of the Departments. ii) All claims for payment of admitted outstanding dues would be entertained for payment provided the claims are lodged before the competent authority within a period of three years from the date of the payment becoming due. iii) All claims for payment of admitted outstanding dues in respect of which the contractors intend or have approached the Hon'ble Court, in such cases, the contractors must approach the Hon'ble High Court within a period of 3 years from the date of the payment becoming due. This view has been taken as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006 at para 21 has observed that though provisions of Limitation Act do not as such apply to proceedings under Article 226, the period of limitation prescribed by Limitation Act for instituting a civil action may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured.” 13. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.5 being the Union of India represented by Secretary Tourism- it has been stated that from 2015-16 onwards, the upon recommendation of the 14 the Finance Commission, the PIDDC (Project Infrastructure Development of Destination and Circuits) scheme was delinked from Union support, which was informed to the State Government vide letter dated 13.02.2017 and the scheme was directed to be implemented by the State Government from their own resources and it was also requested to the State Government to furnish utilization certificate in respect of the funds already released for such unfinished projects, along with details of progress and return of un-utilized funds if any. In this context the respondent No.5/ Union of India is taking the stand that as the responsibility has been shifted to the State government, therefore it is unfair on its part to delay releasing the outstanding amount to the petitioner. 14. Vide order dated 06.06.2024, this Court had put a specific quarry to the learned Government Advocate representing the State respondents as to whether there is any document to show that the petitioner was duly informed prior to entering into the contract that the project/contracts are being awarded on the basis of funding by the Government of India. Upon taking instruction, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (State respondents) filed affidavit stating there is no such document; but that, the aspect of central funding of the projects was communicated verbally at the time of issuance of work order and that it was also informed to the concerned firms/contractors that the departments has received only 20% as the first installment of the sanctioned amount. The petitioner side has placed before this Court a decision of this Court rendered in STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS Versus M/S ZELIEZHU AND ANR WA./17/2024 (Citation GAHC 020002792024). Upon perusing the said judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, it is found that therein it was a case of admittedly liability and therefore, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to dismissed the appeal of the state against the direction for payment made by the learned Single Judge. Upon perusing the said judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, it is found that therein it was a case of admittedly liability and therefore, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to dismissed the appeal of the state against the direction for payment made by the learned Single Judge. In that case also, the aspects of fund constrains were pointed out, whereupon the State of Nagaland was directed to pursue the same with the Central government and the Central government directed to consider the request of the State government objectively and expeditiously. 15 . On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate representing the State government respondents has placed before this Court a judgment of a coordinate Bench of this court rendered in WP(C)/337/2023 SHRI. MONGSHATHE Y. THONGER VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS . Upon perusing the same, I find that in the said case, this Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition due to disputed facts and directed the writ petitioner to take recourse to other forums, which might be better placed to adjudicate the factual disputes. 16 . Upon perusing the work order dated 21.12.2013, I find that one of the conditions was that no power of attorney in the name of any of the individual would be accepted. In this regard, the respondents in their affidavit have contended that the petitioner has violated the terms of the contract and work order by engaging his employee as power of attorney holder. With regard to the said contentions the petitioner in his affidavit in reply stated that Wanmei Konyak was not given any attorney of power by the proprietor of the firm and that as the employee of the concern, he was only authorized to represent the firm and execute the affairs with regard to the contract work. He was also authorized and empowered to maintain correspondence with the authorities. I have carefully perused the authorization given by the petitioner firm in favor of Wangmai Konyak with regard to conducting affairs on behalf of the firm. In my considered view, the said authorization would not violate the aforementioned clause in the work order/ contract as the authorization does not delegate the execution of the work to any person outside the firm/concern. In my considered view, the said authorization would not violate the aforementioned clause in the work order/ contract as the authorization does not delegate the execution of the work to any person outside the firm/concern. The petitioner has also contended in his pleadings that he has completed the assigned work within time and also as per specification. However, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it has been contended that upon joint physical verification of the Budget Accommodation Part 1, the work was not fund to be as per original plan, issued to the contractor. In support of the same, the physical verification report has been annexed as Annexure B. It is stated therein that joint inspection was conducted on 27.01.2024 and it was observed that the work carried out in constructing Budget Accommodation Part-1 was not as per the original plan of the working drawing issued to the contractor (petitioner firm) 17. As has emerged from the principles laid down by this Court in Jatin Pathak (Supra) and Tamsher Ali (Supra) only in case of liability/bill amount which is admitted by the State respondent can a writ court issue a mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing payment of the same. 18 . In the instant case, though the petitioner firm has received part of the amount Rs. 11,11,263/- the remaining amount of Rs. 29,31,737/- cannot be said to be admitted liability because of the contrary contentions of both the sides. Therefore, in terms of the governing law, it would not be possible on the part of this Court to issue a specific direction for payment of the said remaining amount, as sought for by the petitioner firm. Therefore, to that extent the writ petition is found to be devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 19 . However, I find that in the work contract there is no clause governing a situation where the contractor has under taken work but the said work, wholly or in part is not found to be as per specification. The question is in such a situation, whether the contractor would be completely deprived of his dues or he would be paid the dues after any deduction by way of penalties. 20. The question is in such a situation, whether the contractor would be completely deprived of his dues or he would be paid the dues after any deduction by way of penalties. 20. In the instant case the respondent authorities have not denied that the work has not been done verification report dated 19.04.2024 also indicates this. Their only contention is that it has not been done as per specification. The respondents in their affidavit has also flagged the difficulties over funds after the Union government delinked from funding the scheme. The principle of estoppels can also be applicable in matters of government contract in as, such as, the contractor has under taken a work on the direction of an authority – then subsequently, that authority might not be able resile completely from honoring its commitment of paying the dues. As mentioned above, in a situation where work is done but, not completely to the satisfaction of the respondent authority, it has to be decided as to whether the contractor will be completely deprived of his dues or paid a part thereof, after deducting penalties. Such terms and conditions should be ideally incorporated in the contract itself. 21. In the instant case no such clause is found in the work order placed before this Court, as part of the pleadings. With regard to the aspect of dependence of the scheme on Union funding, it has emerged from the pleadings of affidavit that there is no document regarding the same, and that the contractor was verbally informed that the implementation of the project was dependant of central funding. It is not a case of work order being issued only after receipt of central funding. Therefore, the delinking of the scheme from Union finances is a factor which is beyond the control of the contractor. If the contractor has indeed invested his resources in executing work as directed by the authority, it would perhaps be unfair on the part of the respondent authorities to completely deprive the contractor of some payments. 22. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, while a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondent to pay the remaining amount; however, I deem it fit to issue the following directions. 1) The respondent authorities (respondent Nos. 22. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, while a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondent to pay the remaining amount; however, I deem it fit to issue the following directions. 1) The respondent authorities (respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4) shall conduct a fresh verification and determine as to whether the work has been completely done and if so, to what extent it has been executed as per the specification given by the authority. 2) Upon such an exercise, if the respondent authorities find that there is a component of work which has been executed satisfactory, the authority shall consider making payments of the remaining amount to that extent. 3) Regarding funds, the State respondents pertaining to Government of Nagaland, led by respondent No. 2, shall take up with the Union Tourism Department for making available funds for any such payments for works already undertaking if found due, in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of on the aforesaid terms.