ORDER : (MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.) Heard Mr. L. Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R. R.Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the PHE Department. 2. The petitioner’s case is that he was asked to supply low cost materials, vide supply orders dated 08.10.2013. The Chief Engineer (PHE)B&S, Assam had stipulated that the delivery period for supply of the low cost sanitary materials would be 120 days. Out of the 1,73,701/- units, for Silchar Division No. 2, Nalbari, Morigaon, Tezpur Division No. 2, Guwahati Division No. 1 and Nagaon Division, the petitioner supplied 79,758 units. However, the balance 100943 units of low cost sanitary materials were not accepted because of storage problem by the authority. 3. The petitioner’s further case is that citing delayed delivery, the Chief Engineer, PHE has issued the impugned letter dated 04.06.2015, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner failed to supply the materials within the stipulated period, which had hindered the progress of construction of individual house-hold latrines (IHHL) in the State. Therefore, the supply order was cancelled and the petitioner was asked to receive payment for supply made until 31.05.2015. 4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Secretary to the Government of Assam, PHE Department, wherein it had been stated that though the petitioner was ready to deliver the materials, the concerned Division has refused to accept the same, as they lacked storage materials. However, as orders had already been placed with the manufacturer for the remaining materials by making advance payment, request was made to accept delivery of the materials. The same was however not accepted by the authorities. 5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that no opportunity had been given to the petitioners, prior to issuance of the impugned letter dated 04.06.2015 and as such, the same should be set aside. He submits that the respondents should give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with regard to the supply that was to be made by the petitioners. 6. The petitioner’s counsel further submits that there is an outstanding amount of Rs.1,88,27,491/-, which is to be paid by the respondents for supply of materials, which has not been done till date. 7. Mr. 6. The petitioner’s counsel further submits that there is an outstanding amount of Rs.1,88,27,491/-, which is to be paid by the respondents for supply of materials, which has not been done till date. 7. Mr. R. R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that a perusal of the impugned letter dated 04.06.2015 clearly shows that the petitioners had been given ample opportunity to supply his materials on time. However, as the same was not done, the respondents were left with no other alternative, but to cancel the unfulfilled supply orders. 8. The respondent’s counsel further submits that there are no pending dues of the petitioners for the supply already made by the petitioners and as such, the writ petition should be dismissed. 9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 10. The impugned letter dated 04.06.2015, which has cancelled the unfulfilled supply orders, states that the petitioner had been given enough time to deliver the materials and the same had also been communicated by letters issued to him. He had also been requested to supply all the materials within 07.03.2015, vide office letter No.PHE/CE/B&S/PB/38/2013-14/9982 dated 27.02.2015.However, the same had not been complied with. 11. The impugned letter dated 04.06.2015 also showed that the petitioner had been asked to supply all the materials, vide office letter No.PHE/CE/PB-38/2013-14/7117 dated 01.12.2014. 12. On considering the above letter dated 04.06.2015, it is quite apparent that the petitioner had been made aware that he was to supply the materials within time and the same was not done. 13. The extract of the impugned letter dated 04.06.2015 issued by the Chief Engineer, (PHE)B&S is reproduced herein below as follows:- “Sub: Supply order for low cost Sanitary materials under NBA-Cancellation thereof. 1. This office Supply orders No. PHE/CE/B&S/PB-38/2013-14/5874, 5864, 5914, 5919, 5904, 5899, Dtd. 08-10-2013, 2. This office letter No. PHE/CE/B&S/PB-38/2013-14/7117 Dtd. 01.12.2014, 3. This office letter No. PHE/CE/B&S/PB-38/2013-14/9982, Dtd. 27.02.15 Dear Sir, With reference to the above, this is to inform you that, as per decision of the Apex Committee of State Water and Sanitation Mission, to ascertain quality and uniformity of Sanitary materials, Supply Orders were issued to your firm for supply of Low Cost Sanitary Materials (Pan Siphone, PVC Pipe, Y-Junction, End Cap, Solvent Cement) for construction of Individual House Hold Latrines (IHHL), against the target of 2013-14, as per the following terms and conditions. 1. 1. Initially, you were allowed to deliver the materials within 120 (One Hundred and Twenty) days. Further you were given enough time to deliver the materials. 2. Keeping in mind, the target to be achieved you were requested vide letter at sl. no (2), under reference, in expedite the delivery of materials. 3. Subsequently, you were once again requested to supply all the materials within 7-03-2015, vide this office letter, at Sl no 3, under reference, wherein it was clearly stated that, in the event of failure to supply the materials within the stipulated time, the orders will be cancelled. 4. In spite of above correspondences, as well as several verbal and telephonic reminders too, you have failed to supply the materials in full against the supply orders mentioned at sl. no (1) under reference. It has been noted by the Govt. that your failure to supply the materials in full within the stipulated time hindered the progress of construction of IHHL in the State. Thus, the very goal of NBA/SBM(G) has been defeated in the state in view of shortage of required materials. Considering the above and as per decision of the review meeting held on 08-05-2015 as well as the conditions mentioned in the orders, as quoted "Failure on your part to comply with any of the terms and conditions, the department will be at liberty to cancel the order in part or in full without entertaining any claim of compensation from you", the above mentioned orders stand cancelled. No further intimation in this regard will be entertained. Please note that, any dues against your supply of materials till 31-05-2015 will be cleared by the respective DWSC's as per availability of fund. You are also requested to place the bills against delivery of materials (partially or fully) to respective DWSCs for taking necessary action from his end.” 14. With regard to the petitioners’ contention that they have not been paid their contractual dues, para 6 to 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Chief Engineer, (Sanitation), PHE, i.e. the respondent No. 4, clearly shows that the stand of the respondent is that there is no outstanding dues payable to the petitioners. 15. Para 6 to 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Chief Engineer, (Sanitation), PHE, i.e. the respondent No. 4 is as follows:- “6. 15. Para 6 to 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Chief Engineer, (Sanitation), PHE, i.e. the respondent No. 4 is as follows:- “6. That as regards the claim of the petitioner alleging non-payment from Guwahati Division-1, it is submitted that as per instruction received from the respective Executive Engineer, Guwahati Division-1, the petitioner submitted bills amounting to Rs.1,30,14,880/-against work order No. PHE/CE/B&S/PB- 38/2013-14/5904 dated 08.10.2013 and the same have been fully paid in two instalments of Rs.40,14,880/- through RTGS on 11.02.2021 and another Rs.90,00,000/- through PFMS on 09.02.2021 after deduction of mandatory taxes. 7. That as regards the claim of the petitioner alleging non-payment from Nagaon Division, it is submitted that as per instruction received from the respective Executive Engineer, Nagaon Division, the petitioner submitted bills amounting to Rs. 51,24.815/- against work order No. PHE/CE/B & S/PB- 38/2013-14/5899 dated 08.10.2013 and the same have been fully paid with no any outstanding liabilities with the Division. 8. That as regards the claim of the petitioner alleging non-payment from Silchar Division-II, it is submitted that as per instruction received from the respective Executive Engineer, Silchar Division-II, the petitioner submitted two bills amounting to Rs. 1,56,95,440/-and Rs. 70,76,240/- against work order No.PHE/CE/B&S/PB-38/2013-14/5874 dated 08.10.2013 and the same have been duly paid with no any outstanding liabilities in the respective Division vide Vr. No. 15 dated 18.02.2014 for Rs. 1,56,95,440/-, No. 87 dated 04.09.2015 for Rs.8,00,000/- and Vr. No. 2 dated 18.12.2015 for Rs. 62,76,240/-. 9. That as regards the claim of the petitioner alleging non-payment from Tezpur Division No.1, it is submitted that as per instruction received from the respective Executive Engineer, Tezpur Division No-1, there is no records available in the Division at present relating to the above claim as the function and role of Member Secretary, DWSC was handed over to the Executive Engineer, Tezpur Division No. 1 only in the year 2014 and the claim of the petitioner pertains to supply orders of the year 2013. 10. That as regards the claim of the petitioner alleging non-payment from Morigaon Division, it is submitted that as per instruction received from the respective Executive Engineer, Morigaon Division, there is no outstanding bills pending in the respective Division. 10. That as regards the claim of the petitioner alleging non-payment from Morigaon Division, it is submitted that as per instruction received from the respective Executive Engineer, Morigaon Division, there is no outstanding bills pending in the respective Division. But it is pertinent to mention herein that that the concerning S.O (Store) has submitted a report that a challan copy against which no bill has been raised till date for the materials bearing challan No. 8144 dated 07.01.2015 against work order No. PHE/CE/B&S/PB-38/2013-14/5914 dated 08.10.2013. 11. That as regards the claim of the petitioner alleging non-payment from Nalbari Division, it is submitted that as per instruction received from the respective Executive Engineer, Nalbari Division, the petitioner supplied materials and which were received by the concerned Division during November, 2013 against work order No. PHE/CE/B & S/PB-38/2013-14/5864 dated 08.10.2013 and the payment for the same were being paid with no any outstanding liabilities with the Division during August 2015 and April 2015 as per receipt of the fund from S.B.M (G) (Swatch Bharat Mission Gramin). 12. That it is pertinent to mention herein that as per impugned letter dated 04.06.2015 bearing Office Memo No. PHE/CE/B & S/PB-38/2013-14/2469, the office of the Chief Engineer (PHE) B&S cancelled the supply orders dated 08.10.2013 due to the failure on the part of the petitioner in supplying the materials within the stipulated time, i.e. 120 days. This decision to cancel the supply orders was taken up in the review meeting of the Apex Committee which was held on 08.05.2015 where every aspect was taken note of as mentioned in the supply orders and immediately cancelled the supply orders which are yet to be delivered as the very goal of the said program has been defeated in the state in view of shortage of the required materials and failure on the part of the petitioner to supply the materials in the stipulated time even after repeated intimations to deliver the materials without any further delay as per letter dated 01.12.2014 and 27.02.2015.” 16. In view of the stand of the respondents being to the effect that there is no outstanding dues payable to the petitioners, the petitioners would have to approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance, if they are still of the view that the contractual dues have not been paid to the petitioners. In view of the stand of the respondents being to the effect that there is no outstanding dues payable to the petitioners, the petitioners would have to approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance, if they are still of the view that the contractual dues have not been paid to the petitioners. Further, in the event the petitioners are of the view that they have incurred loss, due to the cancellation of the supply orders, the petitioners can always file a damage suit before the Civil Court, if so advised. The said observation has been made due to the fact that there appears to be disputed questions of facts, which would require recording of evidence. 17. In view of the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands dismissed, as disputed questions of facts would require the recording of evidence.