District Collector must consider the contractor’s payment claim and interest, taking the completion certificate into account.

The petitioner was engaged to deepen and strengthen minor irrigation tanks and lakes in Pennagaram Taluk under the Tamil Nadu Village Habitations Improvement Scheme-II.

It claimed to have completed the work and sought payment of ₹28,86,000 under a Letter of Acceptance dated 2 June 2017.

The petitioner relied on an online certificate from the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department indicating completion and entitlement to the stated amount.

It filed this petition under Article 226 seeking payment with 18% annual interest.

The State submitted that the claim would be considered after verification of the relevant documents.

The Court addressed the petitioner’s representation dated 1 November 2023.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direct direction for release of ₹28,86,000 for the works claimed to have been completed.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on the claimed amount, and what consideration of that claim was appropriate.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution, which empowers the High Court to issue directions, orders or writs for enforcement of rights and for other purposes.

The order cites no specific statutory payment provision, legal precedent or substantive doctrine governing the contractual claim.

It directs the competent authority to consider the representation on its merits, in accordance with law, and to take account of the departmental online certificate; the interest claim is to be considered only if admissible in law.

The Court did not determine whether the petitioner had conclusively established its entitlement to the claimed sum.

The State had offered to verify the relevant documents and disburse any amount found due, while the petitioner had produced an online certificate indicating completion and entitlement.

In that context, the Court directed the second respondent to decide the petitioner’s representation on its merits, taking the certificate into account, rather than ordering immediate payment.

It similarly left the interest claim to the authority’s consideration under applicable law.

The second respondent was also directed to consider the interest claim if admissible in law.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs.