Writ courts cannot order disputed project reimbursement beyond the amount admitted as payable.

The petitioner society was sanctioned ₹10 lakh in 2011 to conduct a six-month handicrafts design and technical development project.

It received ₹5 lakh as an advance, completed the project, and claimed the remaining ₹5 lakh after submitting audited accounts.

The respondents objected that the society’s Secretary had also acted as the designer, contrary to the sanction condition requiring an empanelled designer, and disputed expenditure claimed for prototypes.

They calculated ₹2,03,660 as payable and sanctioned that amount in February 2013, but released it only on 18 July 2024.

In earlier orders in the proceeding, the Court directed payment of that admitted amount with interest at 9% per annum from the date of sanction; the respondents’ review petition was dismissed.

The remaining claim was contested.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled, in writ proceedings, to payment of an amount exceeding the admitted reimbursement of ₹2,03,660

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on the admitted amount, and, if so, for what period

The judgment identifies no specific statute or precedent as the basis for its decision.

It applies the principle that, in the circumstances of this case, the Court would not direct payment in writ jurisdiction of a further amount that the respondents disputed and had not admitted as due; the petitioner could pursue that claim before a competent civil court.

It also gives effect to its prior orders directing interest at 9% per annum on the admitted sum from the date it was sanctioned until its release.

The respondents admitted that ₹2,03,660 was payable, and the Court noted that this amount was released only on 18 July 2024, despite having been sanctioned in February 2013.

It therefore reaffirmed the prior direction that interest at 9% per annum run from 28 February 2013 to the date of release.

By contrast, the additional reimbursement sought was disputed, including in relation to the designer fee and prototype costs.

Because the respondents did not admit any further amount as due, the Court declined to order its payment in writ jurisdiction and left the petitioner to pursue the claim in a civil court.

The claim for any further reimbursement was rejected in the writ proceedings, without prejudice to the petitioner’s liberty to seek the balance—identified as ₹2,96,340—plus interest before the competent civil court.

If delay is raised in such proceedings, the civil court is to take account of the petitioner’s bona fide pursuit of its claim before the High Court since 2020.