The court in this case did not explicitly hold that the completion of work or performance of contractual obligations sanitizes or legitimizes any underlying illegality. Instead, the court emphasized that ordinarily, courts do not enforce the terms of a contract when it involves disputed questions of fact or when the contract itself is tainted by illegality. The court also noted that actions of the State or its agencies that are arbitrary or discriminatory, and thus violate constitutional principles, can be challenged through writ petitions, even if they involve contractual matters.

Furthermore, the court observed that directions or communications from authorities that lack statutory force are not binding and do not have statutory effect, implying that mere completion of work or performance under such directions does not validate or legitimize illegal or irregular acts. The court highlighted the importance of legality and procedural correctness over mere performance of contractual obligations, especially when such performance is based on actions that are arbitrary, unfair, or without statutory backing.

In summary, the court's position suggests that completing work or fulfilling contractual obligations does not automatically sanitize or legitimize illegal acts or irregularities, particularly when those acts are challenged on constitutional or legal grounds.