Public authorities must verify contractual work and promptly disburse amounts found payable pursuant to court directions.

The petitioner, a proprietorship concern, was awarded the work of “Construction of Marketing Shed at Kawaimari under Lawkhowa Development Block,” valued at ₹1,80,00,000.

It claimed to have completed approximately 55% of the work and incurred expenditure of ₹97,23,640, for which a Running Account Bill was acknowledged by the Chief Executive Officer, Nagaon Zila Parishad, on 16 March 2016.

As payment was not released, the petitioner earlier instituted WP(C) No. 3413/2017.

By order dated 24 November 2023, the High Court directed the Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, to verify the petitioner’s entitlement and disburse the amount due within four months of receipt of the certified order.

The petitioner served the order on the authorities on 5 December 2023, but neither verification nor payment was made, leading to the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The respondents did not deny the award of the work but submitted that the petitioner’s entitlement required verification.

Whether the respondent authorities were required to verify the petitioner’s claim for payment for the work executed and release the amount found payable

Whether the respondents’ failure to comply with the earlier order dated 24 November 2023 justified further directions under Article 226 of the Constitution

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to require public authorities to perform their legal and administrative obligations and to enforce compliance with its earlier directions.

The governing principle was that a contractor is entitled to payment for work actually executed and certified or found payable upon verification, while the authorities may verify the extent of work and the amount due before disbursement.

The Court further applied the principle that deliberate or unexplained non-compliance with a prior judicial direction constitutes a serious failure of public duty and warrants appropriate supervisory directions.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited.

The Court accepted that the petitioner had been awarded the construction work and that its claim could not be rejected without verification, particularly since the respondents had not filed an affidavit denying the material allegations.

Although the respondents contended that entitlement depended on verification, the Court noted that verification had already been directed in the earlier writ proceedings but had neither been undertaken nor followed by payment.

Accordingly, the Court treated the matter not merely as delayed payment under a contract but also as a case of disregard of an earlier judicial order.

It therefore directed the competent authorities to verify the petitioner’s entitlement and act within defined timelines.

The verification was to be completed within one month of service of the certified judgment upon the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department.

If any amount was found payable, it was to be released within five months after completion of verification, with no delay beyond six months from service of the certified judgment.

If the petitioner was found entitled to no amount or to a lesser amount than claimed, it was to be informed within one month.

The Commissioner was further directed to file an affidavit of compliance within eight months, failing which the matter would be placed before the Court for further orders.