Extra-contractual work requires written authorization or a sanctioned estimate to create an enforceable payment claim.

The petitioner had entered into an agreement with the Executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organisation, Works Division-2, Bagaha, for construction of a Plain Cement Concrete road from Forest I.B., Naurangia to the house of Kishori Mahto in Village Naurangia, West Champaran.

During execution, the then Executive Engineer allegedly orally directed the petitioner to perform additional work beyond the contractual scope.

The respondents acknowledged that the contractual amount had been paid in full, but denied liability for the alleged extra work on the ground that there was no written order, sanctioned estimate, or competent authorisation creating financial liability.

The petitioner accordingly sought payment of ₹3,00,000/- with statutory interest through the writ petition.

1. Whether the petitioner could claim payment for alleged additional work performed pursuant to an oral direction of the Executive Engineer, in the absence of a written order or sanctioned estimate issued by the competent authority.

2. Whether the writ court could direct payment of the claimed amount when the original contractual work had already been paid for and the alleged extra work was not shown to have been duly authorised or sanctioned.

The Court applied the principle that a claim for payment from public authorities for work beyond the scope of an existing contract requires proof of valid authorisation, such as a written order or sanctioned estimate, issued by the competent authority and creating the relevant financial liability.

An alleged oral direction, without supporting authorisation or sanction, does not by itself create an enforceable right to payment for additional contractual work.

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

The Court noted that the petitioner admitted that the additional work had been performed pursuant to an oral order.

Although the petitioner relied on documents to contend that work beyond the agreement had been executed, he failed to establish that the work had been authorised through a written order or a sanctioned estimate by the competent authority.

Since the amount payable for the original contractual work had already been paid, the remaining claim concerned only allegedly extra work.

In the absence of valid authorisation creating financial liability, the Court held that the petitioner could not convert the alleged oral direction into an enforceable payment claim in writ proceedings.

The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.