State cannot arbitrarily withhold admitted balance payment under supply contract after accepting goods; violates Article 14, constitutes unjust enrichment; mandamus maintainable for enforcement as public duty.

JUDGMENT :

WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, J.

BRIEF FACTS:

01. The petitioner, a permanent resident of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, is engaged in the business of supply of goods and is registered on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal. Pursuant to a supply order placed by the office of the District Social Welfare Officer, Pulwama, through GeM, vide Contract No. GEMC-511687785394629 dated 24.06.2023, the petitioner was required to supply two HP Intel Core i7 All-in-One PCs with 23.8-inch display and Windows 11 Professional for a total consideration of Rs. 1,81,959/- in terms of the specifications and conditions stipulated therein. The petitioner, in compliance with the said agreement, supplied the aforesaid goods to the respondent department and raised Invoice No. GEM-31891352 dated 26.06.2023 for the agreed amount.

02. Upon receipt and acceptance of the supplied goods, the respondents released a part payment of Rs. 90,000/- in favour of the petitioner, while withholding the balance amount of Rs. 91,959/-. The petitioner approached the respondents on multiple occasions for release of the remaining amount; however, the same was not paid. The respondents, vide communication dated 28.03.2024 issued by the District Social Welfare Officer, Pulwama, addressed to the Director, Social Welfare, Kashmir, have acknowledged the outstanding liability of Rs. 91,959/-.

03. Aggrieved of the continued non-payment of the admitted dues despite completion of contractual obligations and repeated requests, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking release of the balance amount along with interest and other consequential reliefs.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER;

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has acted in accordance with the supply order and supplied the goods/material within time, yet the respondents have failed to release the balance payment without any justification. It is contended that despite repeated requests and reminders, the respondents have not taken any steps to disburse the amount, which reflects a failure in the performance of public duties.

05. It is further submitted that the petitioner has incurred substantial expenditure in execution of the work involving material and workmanship and the respondents cannot be permitted to exploit labour, particularly when the goods supplied by the petitioner have been advantageously utilized by them.

06. Learned counsel contends that the retention of the amount is illegal and against the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to compensation keeping in view the economic inflation and other factors incidental to the delayed payments, as the petitioner has suffered severe adversities and prejudice.

07. It is also submitted that the non-payment of the balance amount has caused mental trauma and agony to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may issue an appropriate writ directing the respondents to release the balance payment due to the petitioner forthwith.

08. From the material placed on record, it emerges that the respondents themselves, vide communication supra, have acknowledged the outstanding liability. The petitioner contends that the continued withholding of admitted dues has caused financial hardship and prejudice.

09. It is borne out from the record that the respondents had been granted several opportunities to file their reply. Ultimately, by order dated 19.11.2025, this Court granted them a last and final opportunity, clearly stipulating that failure to do so would entail closure of their right to file the same. Despite such indulgence, the respondents have fa