State is liable to pay for successfully executed contractual works upon completion and departmental verification.

The petitioner was awarded a contract for the "Excavation of KUR No. 2 at Beria Beel" under a government scheme for the year 2019–20

Due to natural calamities, the petitioner failed to complete the work within the original timeframe, but was granted a general extension until 31.12.2022 by Respondent No. 4

The petitioner completed the work on 01.03.2023, which was subsequently verified and marked as "Works completed" by the Circle Officer on 16.03.2023

Despite the issuance of a Civil Work Completion Certificate for Rs. 16,81,695/-, the respondent authorities failed to release the payment

The petitioner approached the Court seeking a direction for the payment of the admitted contractual dues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of the contractual amount of Rs. 16,81,695/- for the successfully executed work

2. Whether the Court can direct the respondent authorities to conduct a mandatory verification of completion and documentation for the purpose of payment

The court applied the principle of contractual liability and state obligations in public works. It held that where there is technical sanction and administrative approval, and work is carried out under the supervision of authorities, the state cannot arbitrarily withhold payment for completed work

The court further relied on the principle of administrative responsiveness, necessitating that authorities verify claims and discharge admitted liabilities within a reasonable timeframe

The Court noted that the petitioner has provided evidence of work completion through a verification report from the Circle Officer and a Completion Certificate issued by the relevant authorities

While the Standing Counsel for the Fishery Department did not deny the award of work, he contended that payment must be contingent upon a formal internal verification process

The Court reasoned that if the petitioner has successfully executed the work as per the plan and estimate, the entitlement to payment is absolute

To balance the state’s need for procedural compliance with the petitioner's right to payment, the Court determined that a time-bound verification process by the Managing Director of AFDC was the appropriate remedy to resolve the non-payment

The Court held that if the petitioner is found entitled to the dues upon verification, the Respondents must release the payment

The entire exercise, including the verification and subsequent disbursement, must be completed within a period of 6 months from the date of service of the order