Writ petitions against State for contractual obligations are maintainable even with disputed facts; non-payment of dues despite work completion warrants judicial intervention.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:

“(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to immediately release the 2^nd & Final Bill of the work done as prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Nankhari i.e. respondent No. 4 (Annexure P-3) and Memorandum of Payment as prepared by the Executive Engineer (B&R) Division Rampur Bushahr amounting to Rs. 41,65,842/- alongwith commercial rate of interest @ 12.75%.”

2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner is that though petitioner herein has successfully completed the work of construction awarded to him vide letter 27.10.2023, for an amount of Rs.49,01,653/- but yet he is not being paid amount due to him. To substantiate factum with regard to completion of work as well as preparation of final bill, Mr. Goel, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner specifically invited attention of this Court to Annexures P-3 and P-4, perusal whereof clearly reveals that Site Engineer, after being satisfied with the quality of work done by petitioner, prepared final bill amounting to Rs.43,12,010/- in the month of March, 2024, but more than ten moths have passed, amount is not being released on one pretext or the other. In terms of afore final bill prepared and verified by Assistant Engineer, the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, though authorized payment for sum of Rs.41,65,842/-, but till date, amount has not been credited in the bank account of the petitioner.

3. Vide order dated 19.12.2024, this Court had specifically called upon learned Additional Advocate General to ascertain that why despite there being completion of work, amount is not being released. Vide aforesaid order, this Court had further called upon respondents/State to file short reply affidavit within one week specifically detailing therein reasons for non-release of payment in favour of the petitioner, despite his having completed the work.Neither short reply has been filed nor amount has been released.

4. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, states that Site Engineer after being satisfied with the quality of work, has already prepared the final bill, but on account of paucity of funds, amount has not been released till date. He states that Public Works Department has already taken-up the matter with the Government of Himachal Pradesh for release of funds and as and when funds are made available, bill submitted by the petitioner shall be cleared.

5. Though in the case at hand, no reply has been filed, but taking note of averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by way of an affidavit, as well as documents annexed therewith, coupled with the fair statement given by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court finds that petitioner herein has already completed the work and department, after being satisfied with the quality of work, has already prepared the bill, if it is so, amount to which petitioner is entitled, as indicated in the final bill, deserves to be released.

6. Though it is not in dispute inter se parties, that in terms of agreement arrived inter se parties, dispute if any, qua non payment of bill is to be adjudicated by the arbitrator, if any, appointed with the consent of parties or as per direction issued by the Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act but once there is no dispute qua the liability of the respondents and as of today, Rs.43,12,010/- is payable to the petitioner, this Court sees no impediment in considering the prayer of the petitioner while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Aforesaid issue has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in ABL International Ltd. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553, whereby Hon’bl