Writ courts cannot adjudicate disputed payment claims beyond an authority’s verified assessment on bills alone.

The petitioner, proprietor of M/s Binod Tent, Light & Sound, supplied election-related materials and services for the 2021 Panchayat Election in Sheikhpura. He claimed ₹1,03,00,000, while the competent District Committee assessed the payable amount at ₹21,08,013.

The petitioner challenged that assessment and sought payment of his claimed amount, with interest. The respondents stated that, after statutory deductions, ₹17,44,773 had been paid through CFMS pursuant to the Court’s orders. The petitioner continued to dispute the assessment and claimed that the supporting material had not been properly considered.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ directing payment of the amount claimed above the sum assessed by the competent authority.

Whether the Court could determine the disputed quantum of payment in the writ proceeding on the basis of the petitioner’s bills and supporting documents.

The judgment cites no specific statute, regulation, or precedent.

It applies the principle that a writ proceeding is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate a disputed payment quantum merely on the basis of a claimant’s own bills and claim; where the competent authority has assessed the amount and the admissible sum has been paid, no further payment direction is warranted on the record before the Court.

The Court accepted that the District Committee had examined the bills and materials supplied and assessed ₹21,08,013 as payable. It also found that, after statutory deductions, the net amount of ₹17,44,773 had been paid to the petitioner.

Since the petitioner’s claim for any further amount remained disputed, and the Court could not resolve that dispute merely by relying on the petitioner’s own documents, it declined to direct additional payment.

The writ petition was dismissed; any interlocutory applications were also disposed of.