Government must verify documented contractual bills and pay admitted dues upon complete representation.

The petitioner, a contractor, was engaged to print and supply ration cards and checklists pursuant to a work order dated 2 March 2015.

The petitioner claimed that it subsequently supplied additional ration cards and checklists pursuant to further directions, including Memo No. 1184/Aa dated 3 October 2018, and that an amount of ₹16,00,872 remained unpaid.

After submitting accumulated bills on 15 March 2021 pursuant to the respondents’ direction, the petitioner issued a legal notice and approached the High Court seeking payment of the claimed amount with 18% interest.

The respondents disputed the claim, contending that several bills—particularly those concerning work allegedly performed in 2018—were unsupported by corresponding work orders, that the bills were unnumbered and exaggerated, and that the exact quantity of work authorised was not established.

A fact-finding committee was constituted, which submitted its report on 1 November 2023.

During the proceedings, the petitioner submitted that some payment had been received but that further genuine dues and interest remained outstanding.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ directing the respondents to immediately pay the claimed amount of ₹16,00,872 with 18% interest for the alleged supply of ration cards and checklists.

Whether, in view of the disputed quantities, unsupported bills, and absence of corresponding work orders, the respondents should instead be directed to verify the petitioner’s documents and pay only the admitted and genuine dues.

The Court applied the general public-law principle that a writ of mandamus for payment arising from a government contract may be issued where the liability is admitted or sufficiently established, but disputed contractual claims requiring factual determination should first be verified by the competent authority.

The Court further proceeded on the principle that a government contractor is entitled to consideration and payment of genuine and admitted dues in accordance with the applicable rules, subject to production and verification of relevant supporting documents.

The Court found that the respondents were willing to process and pay the petitioner’s genuine dues, but that the record contained disputes regarding the number of ration cards allegedly printed, the quantities of checklists supplied, and the existence of corresponding work orders.

The respondents’ counter-affidavit also raised concerns regarding exaggerated and unnumbered bills and referred to the fact-finding committee’s report.

Because these factual disputes prevented the Court from determining the precise amount payable in writ jurisdiction, the Court declined to adjudicate the merits or direct payment of the entire claimed sum.

Instead, it adopted a verification-based remedy requiring the petitioner to furnish all relevant documents, including the work orders under which the work was executed.

It directed the petitioner to submit, within one month of receiving the order, a detailed representation along with all relevant and genuine documents, including the applicable work orders.

The respondents were directed to verify the bills and pay any admitted dues found payable within two months of the representation being filed.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, along with any pending interlocutory application.