Public authorities must verify contractual work claims and pay amounts found due within prescribed timelines.

The petitioner, a proprietary concern, was awarded the contract for “Construction of Public Auditorium at Ambagan under Lawkhowa Dev. Block.” It claimed to have satisfactorily completed 53% of the work under the contract valued at ₹1,80,00,000 and incurred expenditure of ₹93,32,551

The petitioner’s Running Account Bill was acknowledged by the Chief Executive Officer, Nagaon Zila Parishad, on 16.03.2016, but payment was not made

In an earlier writ petition, WP(C) No. 3441/2017, the High Court, by order dated 24.11.2023, directed the authorities to verify the petitioner’s entitlement and disburse the payable amount within four months of receipt of the certified order

Despite service of that order on 05.12.2023, the authorities neither conducted the verification nor made payment. The petitioner therefore invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking appropriate relief

The respondents did not deny issuance of the work but contended that the petitioner’s entitlement was subject to verification

1. Whether the respondent authorities failed to comply with the directions issued in the earlier order dated 24.11.2023 by not verifying the petitioner’s entitlement and not making payment of the certified contractual dues

2. Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to verify the work executed by the petitioner and pay the amount, if any, found payable

3. Whether a time-bound mechanism should be prescribed for verification, payment or communication of the reasons for rejection or reduction of the petitioner’s claim

The Court exercised its supervisory and remedial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce compliance with its earlier directions and to secure performance of a public authority’s acknowledged contractual obligation.

The applicable principle was that a contractor is entitled to payment only to the extent of work duly executed and certified after verification by the competent authorities

The Court further applied the principle that administrative inaction or disregard of a binding judicial direction is impermissible and may warrant further judicial directions for compliance

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

The Court accepted that the petitioner had been awarded the work and that its claim of execution and expenditure had not been specifically denied by the respondents

However, because the exact amount payable depended upon verification of the work actually completed and certified, the Court did not direct immediate payment of the entire claimed sum of ₹93,32,551

Instead, it noted that the earlier order had already required verification and payment, yet the authorities had taken no action despite receiving the certified order

This failure constituted not merely non-payment but also disregard of the Court’s earlier direction.

The Court therefore ordered a fresh, time-bound verification and required payment of the amount found due, while also directing that the petitioner be informed if its claim was rejected or reduced

Verification was to be completed within one month of service of the certified judgment upon the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department

Any amount found payable was to be paid within five months after completion of verification, with no overall delay beyond six months from service of the judgment

If the petitioner was found entitled to no amount, or to an amount lower than claimed, the Commissioner or delegatee was required to inform the petitioner within one month of service of the judgment

An affidavit of compliance was directed to be filed within eight months, failing which the matter would be placed before the Court for further orders