Admitted contractual dues must be paid; funding disputes cannot justify withholding payment.

The petitioner, a registered contractor with the Water Resources Department, Assam, was awarded work under the scheme for protection of the Brahmaputra dyke from erosion in the Dikhowmukh–Mukaloni/Rupahimukh area.

After completing the work in 2016, he submitted a bill for ₹10,87,131. The authorities paid ₹9,62,584, leaving a balance of ₹1,24,547, which remained unpaid despite repeated requests.

In its affidavit, the Water Resources Department admitted the total bill, the amount already paid, and the outstanding balance, but stated that payment could not be made owing to non-receipt of the Central Government’s share.

The Central Government, however, submitted that no Central share remained outstanding under the relevant scheme code.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to payment of the admitted outstanding contractual amount of ₹1,24,547.

Whether the High Court could direct the Water Resources Department to release the admitted dues despite the department’s contention that the Central funds had not been received.

The Court applied the principle that a public authority must honour and discharge an admitted financial liability arising from completed government contract work, and that the High Court may issue an appropriate direction in writ jurisdiction where the liability is undisputed and non-payment is arbitrary or unjustified.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited; the decision was based principally on the Department’s clear admission of the outstanding amount and the obligation of the concerned authority to make payment.

The Water Resources Department expressly admitted that the petitioner’s total bill was ₹10,87,131, that ₹9,62,584 had been paid, and that ₹1,24,547 remained due.

Although the Department attributed the non-payment to non-receipt of the Central share, the Central Government asserted that the entire Central and State funding under the relevant scheme had already been released.

The Court therefore treated the petitioner’s entitlement as established and held that an internal funding dispute could not justify withholding an admitted amount payable for work already completed.

Accordingly, responsibility for payment was placed on the Water Resources Department, through its Chief Engineer.

It directed the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Assam, to pay the amount after deducting applicable taxes within six months from service of a certified copy of the order.

The writ petition was consequently disposed of.