Authorities must decide the contractor’s representation for unpaid dues within the prescribed time.

The petitioner, M/s Pooja Construction, was awarded a Public Works Department contract in 2012 for construction of the Polytechnic College at Geedam, including the administrative and college buildings.

An agreement was executed on 17 April 2012 and the work order was issued on 24 May 2012. The petitioner completed the work within the stipulated period, and a completion certificate was issued on 7 March 2015.

The petitioner claimed release of the balance 50% payment, amounting to ₹13,55,626, along with interest, in respect of the completed contractual work.

Since the two writ petitions involved an identical issue, the High Court heard and decided them together, treating W.P.(C) No. 70 of 2023 as the lead matter.

During hearing, the petitioner limited its prayer to permission to submit a fresh representation before the competent authorities, with a direction for its consideration and decision.

The State expressed no objection to this limited relief.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to submit a fresh representation seeking release of the alleged balance contractual payment and other consequential reliefs.

Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to consider and decide such representation within a prescribed period and release any undisputed amount, subject to verification.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The applicable principle was that, where the petitioner seeks consideration of a representation concerning payment under a completed government contract and the State has no objection to such limited relief, the Court may direct the competent authorities to consider and decide the representation in accordance with the applicable rules, law and regulations, without adjudicating the disputed contractual claim on merits.

The Court noted that the petitioner had completed the contracted work and possessed a completion certificate, but was seeking a direction for payment of the alleged balance amount and interest.

Since the petitioner did not press for an immediate adjudication of its monetary claim and instead sought liberty to make a fresh representation, and since the State raised no objection, the Court considered it appropriate to adopt the limited procedural course requested.

The authorities were therefore required to examine the representation, relevant documents and the petitioner’s grounds in accordance with law.

Any amount found to be undisputed could be released, but only after verification.

The petitioner was granted liberty to submit a fresh representation, along with relevant documents and all grounds raised in the writ petitions, before respondent Nos. 1 and 2 within 15 days from receipt of the order.

The concerned respondents were directed to consider and decide the representation in accordance with the applicable law within 60 days from its receipt and, subject to verification, disburse any amount found to be undisputed.

All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.