Undisputed claims must be verified and disbursed within 45 days.

The petitioner sought release of an amount allegedly payable to it by the respondent authorities.

The petition was directed against the respondents’ alleged inaction despite an earlier order of the High Court requiring respondent No. 2 to verify the petitioner’s claim and release the undisputed amount.

According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 had issued six communications to respondent No. 3—the Officer In-charge, District Mineral Foundation Trust, Bilaspur—on 3 July 2024, 23 September 2024, 16 January 2025, 27 February 2025, 10 March 2025, and 31 October 2025, requesting release of the requisite funds, but no effective action had followed.

On 11 August 2026, the State was directed to obtain instructions regarding disbursement of the undisputed amount.

The State submitted that, after due verification, the competent authority would pass an appropriate order and disburse the amount if it was found payable and undisputed.

Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to verify the petitioner’s claim and disburse the amount found payable and undisputed.

Whether the writ petition should be disposed of by directing the authorities to take a decision on the petitioner’s claim within a specified period, without expressing any view on the merits.

The Court applied the principles governing exercise of writ jurisdiction to address administrative inaction and to secure compliance with an earlier judicial direction.

The Court confined its order to procedural verification and consequential disbursement, expressly refraining from adjudicating the merits of the underlying claim.

The petitioner alleged prolonged non-compliance with the earlier direction and placed on record repeated communications from respondent No. 2 seeking release of funds.

Since the State acknowledged that the claim could be disbursed if, upon verification, it was found payable and undisputed, the Court considered it appropriate to issue a time-bound direction rather than determine the petitioner’s substantive entitlement.

The direction balanced the petitioner’s grievance concerning delay with the authorities’ obligation to verify the claim before making payment.

The Court therefore limited its intervention to verification and disbursement of any admitted amount, while preserving the merits of the claim for determination by the competent authority.

If the amount was found payable and undisputed, it was to be disbursed to the petitioner within 45 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.