Authorities must verify contractual completion and entitlement before releasing the contractor’s claimed dues.

The petitioner, a Class-I contractor registered with the Assam PWD, participated in the tender for the “Construction and Upgradation of VVIP Parking Area of New Assam Legislative Assembly Building Campus at Dispur, Guwahati-6.” A formal work order was issued to him on 14 March 2024 for work valued at ₹44,30,287.

The petitioner claimed that he completed the work within the stipulated period and submitted the completion certificate, utilisation certificate, and other required documents, but the authorities did not release the payment despite repeated requests.

The petitioner therefore invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging failure by the authorities to discharge their duty and release the contractual dues.

The State did not dispute that the work had been allotted to the petitioner, but submitted that his entitlement was subject to verification by the competent authorities.

Whether the petitioner completed the contractual work satisfactorily and submitted the documents necessary for release of the contractual amount of ₹44,30,287?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to payment of the claimed contractual dues, and what directions should be issued for verification and payment?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to address the alleged failure of public authorities to perform their legal and contractual obligations.

The governing principle applied was that a contractor who has satisfactorily completed the contractual work and complied with the requisite documentation is entitled to payment of the amount lawfully due; however, where entitlement is disputed or requires factual verification, the authorities must first verify execution of the work, compliance with documentary requirements, and the precise amount payable.

The Court found that there was no dispute that the petitioner had been awarded the construction work, but the petitioner’s entitlement to the claimed amount required verification by the respondent authorities.

Applying the principle that payment follows satisfactory completion of the contract and fulfilment of the prescribed formalities, the Court directed Respondent Nos. 2–6 to verify whether the work had been successfully executed, whether the requisite documents had been submitted, and the amount, if any, actually payable.

Since the Court did not itself undertake factual determination of the petitioner’s contractual entitlement, it made payment conditional upon the outcome of the administrative verification.

If the petitioner was found entitled to any amount, the Chief Engineer or his delegatee was to communicate the entitlement to Respondent No. 1, who was directed to make payment within five months of receiving that communication.

If the petitioner was found entitled to no amount, or to an amount less than claimed, he was to be informed accordingly within one month.