Authorities must release verified admissible dues within two months, preventing indefinite administrative delay.

The petitioner, described as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, claimed that work relating to computer training and vocational training had been allotted to it as the lowest bidder in certain government residential schools in Bihar after deposit of the requisite security amount.

The petitioner asserted that it completed the allotted training work, that the work was inspected and found satisfactory, and that bills amounting to approximately ₹4,80,000, together with refund of the security deposit of ₹50,000, remained unpaid.

The respondents initially stated that the claim required verification of bills, attendance records, vouchers and other supporting documents before payment from the public exchequer could be released.

A subsequent verification found ₹39,524 admissible for one component of the claim.

A Five-Member Inquiry Committee later found the petitioner’s computer-training work satisfactory and approved ₹1,09,087 for Medrol School and ₹96,461 for Sidhwan School, which the respondents stated had been disbursed electronically.

However, the claim relating to vocational training was rejected for want of documentary or factual evidence that the training had been conducted.

The petitioner continued to seek release of the admitted and verified dues.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to release of the amount found admissible after verification of the computer-training and other claimed work.

Whether the respondents could continue withholding the verified dues on the ground of pending administrative and procedural formalities.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to payment of the entire claimed amount, including the amount relating to vocational training and refund of the security deposit.

The Court applied the principle that government authorities cannot indefinitely withhold verified and admitted contractual or service-related dues after accepting the benefit of work performed and undertaking to process payment.

The Court also proceeded on the basis that payment from the public exchequer must be preceded by verification of supporting records and compliance with applicable financial and procedural requirements.

The petitioner had invoked Article 14 of the Constitution, alleging arbitrary withholding of legitimate dues, but the Court did not cite or elaborate upon any separate constitutional precedent.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly relied upon in the judgment.

The Court found that there was no dispute that the petitioner had undertaken the work pursuant to orders issued by the respondent authorities; the dispute concerned only the extent of entitlement and the amount payable.

The respondents’ own affidavits disclosed that the claim had been verified and that specific amounts had either been approved or disbursed.

Since the authorities had accepted the verification process and expressed willingness to release the verified dues, the Court held that the petitioner could not be made to suffer because of continuing administrative delay.

At the same time, the Court did not accept the petitioner’s entire monetary claim as established: the vocational-training component had been rejected by the Inquiry Committee for lack of supporting evidence.

The relief was therefore confined to completion of verification, if still necessary, and payment of the amount found legally admissible.

The respondent authorities were directed to complete any remaining verification and release the admissible amount payable to the petitioner in accordance with law within two months from receipt or production of a copy of the order.

The Court did not direct payment of the entire claimed amount of ₹4,80,000, interest, or the claimed security deposit; payment was limited to the amount established as admissible through verification.

Any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.