Writ relief is denied for decades-old claims involving disputed completion certificates.

The petitioner claimed payment of outstanding dues for eight PWD road works allegedly completed in 2002 and 2003.

The respondents opposed the petition, stating that the petitioner had not furnished original bills, completion certificates, agreements, formal work orders, photographs, inspection reports and other documents required for processing the demand proposal.

They further alleged that the completion certificates relied upon by the petitioner appeared to be fake or fabricated because the prescribed certificates at the relevant time were to be signed only by the Executive Engineer, not the Accounts Officer.

The writ petition was filed in 2025, approximately 22 years after the alleged dues arose.

Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct payment of alleged dues arising from works completed approximately 22 years earlier.

Whether the writ petition was maintainable where the respondents disputed the authenticity of the completion certificates and asserted that material supporting documents necessary for processing the claim had not been produced.

Whether the petitioner could be granted liberty to pursue an appropriate civil remedy, with exclusion of the period spent prosecuting the writ petition for limitation purposes.

The Court applied the discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, including the principle that extraordinary writ relief may be refused where a claim is brought after inordinate and unexplained delay or laches, particularly when the delay prejudices the respondent’s ability to investigate and defend the claim.

The Court also applied the principle that disputed questions concerning the genuineness of documents and completion of contractual works are ordinarily unsuitable for adjudication in writ proceedings.

It further recognised that refusal of writ relief does not necessarily extinguish a legally available civil remedy; however, exclusion of the period spent in writ proceedings for limitation purposes does not amount to an extension of limitation.

The Court found that the petitioner approached it in 2025 in respect of alleged payment obligations arising from works completed in 2002 and 2003, resulting in a delay of approximately 22 years.

Such delay impaired the respondents’ ability to verify the works, locate records and prepare an effective defence.

The respondents had specifically stated that essential documents required for preparing a demand proposal were unavailable or had not been submitted.

In addition, the authenticity of the completion certificates—the principal documents relied upon by the petitioner—was directly disputed, with the respondents alleging that they did not conform to the prescribed form applicable at the relevant time.

In these circumstances, issuing a payment direction under Article 226 would be inequitable and would prejudice the respondents; the Court therefore declined to adjudicate the disputed claim in writ jurisdiction.

The dismissal did not preclude or prejudice the petitioner from approaching the competent civil court, if permissible in law.

The period from 17 February 2025 until 11 August 2026, during which the writ proceedings remained pending, was directed to be excluded while computing limitation; the Court clarified that this exclusion did not constitute an extension of the limitation period.