The State cannot withhold payment for completed public works over internal procedural lapses.

The petitioner contractor sought payment of ₹4,09,942 for protection works at Balole Nallah, which he said were allotted by the Flood Control Division and completed.

The respondents’ communications acknowledged the work and the outstanding amount, but payment remained unpaid.

The respondents opposed the writ petition on the grounds that mandatory codal requirements—including Administrative Approval, Technical Sanction and e-tendering—had not been followed, and that funds were unavailable.

Whether the State may deny payment for public works admittedly executed to its satisfaction solely because of non-compliance with internal procedural requirements, including Administrative Approval and Technical Sanction

Whether the petitioner could obtain relief in writ jurisdiction where the respondents acknowledged the liability but disputed payment on contractual and procedural grounds

The Court relied on ABL International Ltd. v. ECGC, (2004) 3 SCC 553, and Surya Constructions v. State of U.P., (2019) 16 SCC 794, for the proposition that writ jurisdiction may be exercised to enforce public-law obligations arising from contracts where material facts are undisputed and liability is admitted; arbitrary non-payment of admitted dues may violate Article 14.

It applied the presumption that official acts have been regularly performed (omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta) and referred to its decisions in M/S Rightway Constructions Company v. UT of J&K, M/S Krishna Engineering Works v. Jal Shakti Department, and Bilal Ahmad Mir v. UT of J&K concerning payment for work executed under official orders despite alleged internal approval deficiencies.

It also relied on Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as explained in State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal & Sons, AIR 1962 SC 779: a person who lawfully performs work for another, whose benefit is enjoyed, is entitled to compensation.

The Court found that the respondents’ records acknowledged the allotment and execution of the work, the preparation of bills, and the outstanding liability.

Since the objection concerned departmental procedures that were within the responsibility of departmental officials, the Court held that those alleged lapses could not be used to defeat the contractor’s claim after the work had been executed and its benefit retained.

Given the admitted liability and the absence of a dispute over execution, the Court rejected the maintainability objection and found a legal obligation to process and pay the claim.

The petition and connected applications were disposed of accordingly.