A writ of mandamus cannot compel payment under a contract without clear evidence of entitlement and compliance.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 29th day of November, 2025 Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 16 March 2021 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.35916 of 2016. Appellants are the Respondents in the W.P.(C).

2. Respondent had filed the W.P.(C) seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st Appellant State Poverty Eradication Mission (Kudumbashree), to release an amount of Rs.54,96,000/- towards the second phase of payment claimed to be due under Ext.P1 agreement.

3. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment directed the 1st Appellant to release the said amount within a period of 2 months from the date of the judgment. Aggrieved Appellants are before us in Appeal.

4. Heard Sri.V.Tekchand, Senior Government Pleader for the Appellants and Sri.Millu Dandapani, Advocate for the Respondent.

5. On behalf of the Appellants, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in directing to effect 40% payment to the Respondent under phase II. It is contended that such a direction could not have been issued without considering the terms and conditions of Ext.P1 agreement in its entirety. The agreement, even as of date, has not been performed and the clauses thereof have been honoured only in their breach. The clause envisaging payment under phase II ought not to have been considered in isolation. The Respondent already having realised 25%, allowing the prayer of the Respondent would amount to permitting them to walk away with 65% of the amounts under Ext.P1 in spite of the fact that the agreement remains unperformed. Any further payments to the Respondent, without the objectives of the agreement being met, would cause a huge loss to the exchequer.

6. The learned Single Judge ought not have treated clause 3.1 (iii) of Ext.P1 agreement as one laying down a time scale for effecting payment. The said clause had no such purpose or intent. The same was only a general payment schedule. The Respondent, upon signing the agreement and after receiving phase I, which constitutes 25% of the amount, preferred a belated invoice for the 2^nd instalment. No claim has been preferred by the Respondent to date as regards the third and fourth phases mentioned in clause 3.1 (iii). The said fact by itself would reveal the lack of bona fides in seeking the 2^nd instalment, after substantial delay. The attempt is only to release 40% in addition to 25% and leave the agreement unperformed.

7. Appellants placed reliance on the dictum in State of Kerala and others v. M.K.Jose [ 2015 KHC 4534 ] and M.P.Power Management Company Limited, Jabalpur v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited and others [ (2023) 2 SCC 703 ], to buttress the contention that the writ court ought to have refrained from entertaining petitions involving contractual breaches involving disputed factual issues.

8. The learned counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is valid, proper and does not call for any interference. Ext.P1 agreement stipulated payment of 40% as the second phase after one month of starting training. The same had become due upon compliance with the mandates specified and the learned Single Judge had only taken note of the same and directed payment of the said amount. The mandates for such payment had admittedly been met.

9. According to the learned counsel, the contention that the agreement stands unperformed is incorrect. There has been full performance of the agreement on the part of the Respondent. Training had been conducted and certificates were issued as envisaged.