Mandamus for payment of admitted contractual dues must be prioritized per established verification and fund availability guidelines.

The Petitioner, a registered government contractor, was awarded a work order on 12.09.2017 for road construction in Baksa District for an amount of Rs. 99,96,570/-

Upon successful completion of the work within the stipulated timeframe, the Petitioner submitted bills totaling Rs. 99,91,522/-, which the Respondent Authorities failed to clear

In an earlier round of litigation (WP(C) No. 76/2020), the Gauhati High Court directed the Respondents on 01.12.2021 to verify the claims and release the entitled amount

Following this order, the Respondents made a partial payment of Rs. 49,49,922/-, leaving an admitted balance of Rs. 50,41,600/- unpaid despite subsequent representations

1. Whether the Respondent Authorities are liable to release the admitted outstanding balance of Rs. 50,41,600/- to the Petitioner in light of the previous court directions and the verification of work

2. Whether the lack of available funds is a valid ground for the continued withholding of admitted contractual dues

The Court primarily applied the legal principles established by the Full Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Tamsher Ali and Others v. State of Assam and Others [2008 (4) GLT 1], which mandates the verification and systematic settlement of admitted contractual liabilities by the State and its instrumentalities

The principle reinforces that once a claim is verified and admitted as due, the State is obligated to release payment based on the seniority of the claims and availability of funds, without indefinite delay

The Court noted that this is the second instance of the Petitioner seeking judicial intervention for the same grievance. In the initial round, the Court had already ordered a verification process, which resulted in the Respondents admitting the Petitioner’s total entitlement and making a part payment

The Court observed that the Respondent BTC significantly admitted the outstanding balance of Rs. 50,41,600/-, only citing "availability of funds" as the reason for non-payment

Relying on the Tamsher Ali precedent, the Court reasoned that since the entitlement was no longer in dispute and had been duly verified through a court-mandated process, the Respondents were legally bound to fulfill the remaining liability

Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a specific direction to ensure the release of the remaining dues as per the observations made in the previous round of litigation