(1.) AS per the case of the petitioner, under valid orders of the respondents, he was assigned to sink 232 Tubewells. He completed the work a report of which was also submitted by the concerned officer before the Superintending Engineer. Thereafter, he has raised his bills. Out of the 232 Tubewells, petitioner has been paid in respect of 193 Tubewells, but his dues in respect of 39 Tubewells is still pending. It goes without saying that, if the petitioner has completed the work as per the contract agreement and to the satisfaction of the respondents, he is entitled for payment of his bills and the respondents have no authority to withhold the same indefinitely without any valid and cogent reasons. It may be made clear that, since petitioner claims to have done the work in terms of the agreement and/or under valid orders/authorization by the competent authorities, paucity of fund or non -allotment of fund cannot and should not be an excuse for keeping his/its bills pending.
(2.) IN the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondent, responsible for payment of the amount of bills of the petitioner, to examine his/its bills in the light of work done by him/it and ensure release of admissible amount of the bills to the petitioner positively within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, if necessary, by arranging fund for the same, failing which the said respondent shall be liable to pay an interest on the amount, at the rate of 12% compoundable yearly, from his own pocket. In case, the said respondent finds that the amount of bill or any part thereof is not payable to the petitioner, he shall communicate the same to the petitioner in specific terms, assigning reasons thereof, within that very period. In that event, petitioner shall be at liberty to seek his remedy in accordance with law before an appropriate forum and claim an adjudication in respect of his entitlement of the said amount with interest.