The State is bound by Article 14 of the Constitution even in contractual matters; non-payment of undisputed bills by the State is arbitrary and actionable under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

:: ORDER ::

Heard Sri Shyam S.Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3; and Smt. K.Kalpana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“…to pass order, direction or writ and more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the acts of the respondents in not making/releasing the payment of the amount due to the petitioner of Rs.7,77,262.23 paisa/- along with interest in respect of purchase of Zinc Sulphate 21%, in spite of repeated requests and demands, as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded, violative of several provisions of law and principles of natural justice and judicial precedents and consequently direct the respondents to make/release the payment of the amount of Rs.7,77,262.23 paisa/- along with interest in respect of purchase of Zinc Sulphate 21%, to the petitioner forthwith along with interest and damages, pending disposal of writ petition, in the interest of justice and pass...”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition is as under:

i) The petitioner company is one of the leading and reputed business entities dealing in chemicals and related items running its business for a long time.

ii) Respondent No. 2 purchased goods from time to time under the petitioner's credit invoices received them to its satisfaction without complaints on quality or quantity but failed to pay.

iii) Despite the petitioner's repeated demands, Respondent No. 2 did not pay the due amounts to the petitioner. On each demand, 2nd respondent postponed payment on one pretext or another, promising to pay after sanction from Respondents Nos. 1 and 3, but however, failed to honor the said commitments; the amounts remains pending as on date since a long time.

iv) Based on these facts, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 04.12.2025 to Respondent No.2. The notice demanded payment of the due amount with interest, damages, and compensation.

v) It was served on 2nd respondent on 09.12.2025, as per postal acknowledgment. In response, respondent No.2 addressed a letter to respondent No.3 on 12.12.2025, requesting release of Rs.1,09,80,380/- under NFSM Scheme and Rs.4,64,241/- under NFSM (OS&OP) Scheme for Zinc Sulphate 21% p.a., supply. However, the amounts had not been released as on date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:-

(A) The relevant portion of the judgment dated 08.03.2019 passed in M/ s. Surya Constructions Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2019) 16 SCC 794 by the Two Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2610 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.29505 of 2014), is extracted hereunder:

“…It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated 22.03.2014 that there is no dispute as to the amount that has to be paid to the appellant. Despite this, when the appellant knocked at the doors of the High Court in a writ petition being Writ Civil No.25126 of 2014, the impugned judgment dated 02.05.2014 dismissed the writ petition stating that disputed questions of fact arise and that the amount due arises out of contract. We are afraid the High Court was wholly incorrect inasmuch as there was no disputed question of fact. On the contrary, the amount payable to the appellant is wholly undisputed. Equally, it is well settled that where the State behaves arbitrari