JUDGMENT AND ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. A. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondent No.1. Mr. M. Chetia, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Ms. R. Deka, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.86,65,600/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum till actual realization. 3. The material facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition are that a Notice Inviting Tender was issued for the construction of a multi-utility building (Chawk Bazar) at Jorhat, Assam. The petitioner participated in the said tender process and was issued a preliminary work order on 28.02.2011 by the respondent No.4 at a total contract price of Rs.14,90,12,664.94p. It is seen from the contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 that the earnest money is 2% of the contract value and the security deposit including earnest money is 10%. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner carried out the work to the satisfaction of the Respondent Authorities till the month of September, 2015. The reason for stopping of the work, as per the petitioner, is that against the Running Account bills Nos.1 to 4 which the petitioner raised an amount of Rs.3,17,93,885/-, the petitioner was paid a total amount of Rs.2,92,78,377/- up to 06.09.2014. Thereupon, the petitioner raised a Running Bill on 28.07.2015 of an amount of Rs.38,81,715/- and further executed another work worth Rs.23 lakhs approximately. However, as there was no payment made on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner on 09.09.2015 duly intimated the respondent Nos.3, 4, & 5 that the petitioner was not in a position to carry out the further work and further requested payment of the amount Rs.62 lakhs along with interest. It is seen that the petitioner had submitted various representations on 22.02.2016; 12.11.2018 and 11.02.2020 and finally having not received any amount, issued a legal notice on 10.03.2022. As per the petitioner, the amount to which the petitioner is entitled, along with the security deposit, comes to Rs.86,65,600/- which the respondents are liable to pay. It is seen that the petitioner had submitted various representations on 22.02.2016; 12.11.2018 and 11.02.2020 and finally having not received any amount, issued a legal notice on 10.03.2022. As per the petitioner, the amount to which the petitioner is entitled, along with the security deposit, comes to Rs.86,65,600/- which the respondents are liable to pay. Under such circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 07.06.2022. 5. The respondents Nos.3, 4 & 5 had filed an affidavit-in- opposition wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the petitioner was awarded the contract for Rs.14,90,12,664.94p. Though in the said affidavit-in-opposition, it has been categorically mentioned that out of the sanctioned amount, the Government of India has not released the funds, but at paragraph No.7 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, it has been categorically mentioned that the petitioner had already been paid an amount of Rs.2,92,78,596/- against execution of the work from the funds received from the Government of India and the Board’s own funds. 6. It has further been mentioned that as regards the claim of the petitioner in respect to the security deposit of Rs.25 lakhs and the amount of the Running Bill No.5 of Rs.38,21,715/-, the petitioner had stopped the construction work in the month of October, 2014 and the Government of India had not released any funds. It was also mentioned in the said affidavit-in-opposition that there has been no measurement of the work done by the petitioner and there are no certificates and signatures of the officials of the Jorhat Municipal Board except the signature of the then Project Engineer of the Jorhat Municipal Board. It is also seen from the contents of the affidavit-in-opposition that the respondents have also denied the claim of the petitioner. 7. In the backdrop of the above, this Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. From a perusal of the materials on record as well as the affidavit-in- opposition and upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties, it appears that there are serious disputed questions of facts as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the amount as claimed in the instant writ petition. In addition to that, there are also issues raised as regards limitation. 8. In addition to that, there are also issues raised as regards limitation. 8. Taking into account the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the issues involved in the instant proceedings cannot be disposed of by issuing appropriate directions upon the respondents to pay the amount as claimed by the petitioner. The issues which have been raised, in the opinion of this Court, are to be adjudicated before an appropriate forum where evidence can be led. This Court further finds it pertinent to observe that though Mr. A. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at least direction can be issued for refund of the security deposit, but it is the opinion of this Court that such direction cannot issued in writ jurisdiction when the work is completed or the amount is admitted to be paid. 9. Considering the above, this Court is therefore not inclined to exercise its writ jurisdiction in respect to the present dispute. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 10. Before parting with the records, this Court however observes that the instant writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that this Court would not be in a position to decide the factual disputes and more particularly as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the amount as claimed. Under such circumstances, the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not prejudice the petitioner, to avail remedies before the Competent Civil Court, if so permissible under law. 11. This Court further observes that the period from 07.06.2022 till date, be excluded while completing the period of limitation.