Admitted contractual dues cannot be withheld indefinitely merely for want of departmental funds.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to allot funds and pay the outstanding amount due for works executed by him, along with interest.

The works concerned schemes for tubewells/chapa-kals in the Runnisaidpur Assembly Constituency and were entrusted to the petitioner for implementation.

After completion of the works, Measurement Books were prepared and part payment was made, subject to availability of funds.

The Executive Engineer requested allotment of funds for payment of the outstanding dues by Letter No. 564 dated 28 March 2023.

In response to an application under the Right to Information Act, the department confirmed by Letter No. 582 dated 3 April 2023 that ₹11,94,158 remained payable to the petitioner and that payment had not been made due to lack of funds.

The respondents also acknowledged that further requests for fund allotment had been made between 2023 and 2026.

In their supplementary counter-affidavit, the respondents stated that the balance would be paid after receipt of the requisite allotment.

The work had admittedly been completed in 2010.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for payment of the admitted outstanding amount of ₹11,94,158 despite the respondents’ plea of non-availability of funds?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on the delayed payment?

The Court applied the public-law principle that an admitted and verified contractual or work-related liability of the State cannot be withheld indefinitely merely because funds have not yet been allotted.

It further applied the principle governing issuance of a writ of mandamus, namely, that where a public authority has acknowledged a subsisting legal or monetary obligation, the Court may direct performance of that obligation.

The Court did not cite any specific statute or judicial precedent; the claim for interest was left to be determined by the competent authority in accordance with applicable rules and law.

The respondents’ own records established that the works had been completed, the Measurement Books had been prepared, and ₹11,94,158 had been verified and admitted as payable.

Since the entitlement was not disputed, the plea of non-availability of funds could not justify indefinite withholding of payment, particularly when the liability arose from work completed in 2010.

The Court therefore considered it unnecessary to keep the writ petition pending and directed the competent authorities to secure the requisite allotment, if necessary, without delaying payment through inter-departmental correspondence.

The issue of interest was not adjudicated on merits and was left for consideration by the competent authority.

If further fund allotment was required, the authorities were directed to take all necessary steps and not defer payment merely because of inter-departmental correspondence.

The petitioner’s claim for interest was left open for consideration by the competent authority under the applicable law and rules.