The State is bound by the principles of fair play and non-arbitrary action and cannot evade contractual obligations citing financial difficulty.

1. Heard the parties.

2. Pursuant to order issued by the State Government through Superintendent, Mandal Kara, Bettiah, West Champaran, Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., a Government of India Enterprises agreed to supply certain drugs and medicines in the State through their authorised stockist M/s. Amit Pharmaceuticals, the petitioner. The supplies were made in the year 2001. It is not disputed that the contract was fully complied with. Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticais Ltd. authorised petitioner to make delivery and receive payment. Supplies having been made bills were submitted in the year 2001 itself. Even though there was absolutely no dispute of any nature in regards the delivery. Payments were not made on the spacious plea of funds not being available. This Court wonders how orders could have been placed without proper budgetary allocation and if the budgetary allocation was there why payments were not made immediately.

3. However, a counter-affidavit has been filed which has been sworn by Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Bettiah whereby the case of the petitioner stands admitted in paragraph 5. It has been stated that the only reason why dues are not being paid is because of financial difficulty as there was shortage in budgetary allocation. The petitioner rightly submits that he is not concerned with the financial difficulty or otherwise of the State. As per the terms he had made supplies and was entitled to receive payments immediately irrespective of the difficulty of the State in the present case. It is too late in the day to suggest that State or State Instrumentalities are not bound by the principles of fair play and non-arbitrary action as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution. If the State can ask for due performance of contract the other party has a right to ask and expect for the same.

4. In the present case the dues being admitted, l find no difficulty in issuing writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of the dues as admitted in their counter-affidavit within a period of two weeks from today alongwith simple interest at the rate of 6%.

5. With this direction the writ application is allowed.