Authorities must release admitted supply dues within three months, subject to lawful verification.

The petitioner supplied water buckets, jugs, sanitizers, masks, gloves and PPE kits to COVID-19 quarantine centres under Nasriganj Block between 6 May 2020 and 25 May 2020, at the request of the Block Development Officer and local administration.

The supplies were received and entered in the official records, and payment for certain items was subsequently made; however, the claimed amount relating to 3,635 water buckets and jugs remained unpaid.

After repeated requests and submission of bills containing GST details, the petitioner made a representation dated 7 March 2021.

The Block Development Officer, by letter dated 3 April 2021, confirmed the supply and requested necessary action for payment.

During the writ proceedings, the respondents stated that the claim required verification because the relevant COVID-19-period officers had been transferred.

A three-member enquiry team was thereafter constituted, and the District Magistrate directed processing of payment after verification of the work order, bills, receipt of materials and stock register.

The Sub-Divisional Officer sought allotment for payment, and the District Magistrate requested the Department of Disaster Management to provide the necessary allotment.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for consideration and release of the unpaid amount claimed for supplies made to COVID-19 quarantine centres, where the respondents substantially acknowledged the claim but stated that verification and allotment were pending.

Whether the respondents could be directed to pay the admitted dues within a specified period, subject to verification in accordance with law.

The Court applied the principle that a writ court may issue an appropriate direction to public authorities for consideration and release of admitted or substantially acknowledged government dues, particularly where the underlying supply is reflected in official records and the authorities have not disputed the claim in principle.

At the same time, payment may remain subject to verification of the work order, bills, receipt of materials, stock register and other prescribed formalities, and the Court will avoid adjudicating disputed questions in writ jurisdiction.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner had supplied materials for the quarantine centres or that his claim had been taken up for official verification.

The three-member enquiry, the District Magistrate’s direction to process the payment, the request for allotment by the Sub-Divisional Officer, and the District Magistrate’s requisition to the Disaster Management Department demonstrated that the claim was substantially acknowledged and remained pending principally because of allotment and completion of verification formalities.

Accordingly, the Court considered it appropriate to issue a limited administrative direction rather than determine any disputed entitlement or exact amount.

The direction was therefore made subject to verification and confirmation of the amount borne out by the official records.

The respondent authorities were directed to take necessary steps to release the admitted dues payable to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the order.

The amount payable was expressly made subject to verification in accordance with law and the respondents’ records, including the relevant work order, bills, receipt of materials and stock register.

Any interlocutory application was also disposed of.