Court’s Decision
The Gauhati High Court, while hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by contractors seeking payment for supplies made during the 2018 Panchayat Elections in Nalbari district, expressed serious concern over the inordinate delay by government authorities in processing verified bills. Justice Michael Zothankhuma observed that the repeated calls for original bills and vouchers—despite their earlier verification and submission—“appears to be an exercise to delay payment of dues to the petitioner.” The Court warned that concerned officers may be summoned with records if the issue remains unresolved and fixed 20.06.2025 for further hearing.
Facts
The petitioners, all proprietorship firms, had supplied various goods and services for the Panchayat Elections conducted in Nalbari district in 2017–2018. Though the supplies were made and the bills/vouchers duly verified, payments totalling over ₹5.07 crores remained pending. Out of this, ₹2.86 crores had already been sanctioned while ₹2.21 crores were still in liability. The District Commissioner, Nalbari, confirmed that all original bills had been sent to the Commissioner of the Panchayat & Rural Development (P&RD) Department as early as June 2020. However, in April and June 2025, the Commissioner again called for the same documents, leading to concerns of deliberate delay.
Issues
- Whether repeated demands for original documents already submitted and verified constitute an administrative delay tactic.
- Whether the non-payment despite verified liabilities violates the petitioners’ legal and constitutional rights.
- Whether judicial intervention is necessary to ensure accountability and transparency in public administration.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners contended that the conduct of the P&RD Department and associated authorities was arbitrary and mala fide. Despite verified liabilities and sanctioned amounts, payments had not been released. The repeated requests for original documents were termed as a façade to prolong non-payment. They prayed for immediate directions to release the dues with interest, citing financial hardship and denial of legitimate entitlements.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents, through their respective counsels, submitted that steps were being taken to gather all relevant records and information. It was stated that some internal communications and procedural verifications were still ongoing. Counsel for the P&RD Department assured that all necessary documents would be produced within a week, and the matter would be resolved in coordination with the Finance Department and Assam State Election Commission.
Analysis of the Law
The Court implicitly applied the principles of administrative fairness and constitutional due process. Government departments, being trustees of public funds, are expected to act with efficiency and transparency. Once a financial liability is verified and sanctioned, unreasonable delay in disbursement—especially on repetitive procedural grounds—may amount to arbitrary state action, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court appeared to adopt a pro-citizen stance in holding that verified public dues cannot be withheld indefinitely.
Precedent Analysis
While no case laws were expressly cited in the order, the judgment aligns with precedents such as:
- State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (AIR 2008 SC 196): Delays in payment after government procurement may attract writ jurisdiction if arbitrary.
- Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985 AIR 1416): Due process is inherent in administrative actions, especially those affecting rights.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987 AIR 1086): Public authorities are accountable for administrative lapses that affect citizen rights.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found it “strange” that despite a 2020 communication confirming the submission of original bills, the Commissioner, P&RD Department, was still demanding the same documents in 2025. It viewed this as a suspicious move possibly designed to avoid or delay payment. The judge observed, “The entire exercise for calling for the original bills and vouchers afresh… appears to be an exercise to delay payment.” The Court cautioned that if the matter remains unresolved, the responsible officers would be required to appear before it with complete records to “thrash out” the issue.
Conclusion
The High Court adjourned the matter to 20.06.2025 while directing the State authorities to produce all relevant documents and resolve the pending payment issue within a week. The Court signalled that continued non-compliance may lead to further judicial scrutiny and possible coercive directions.
Implications
This case highlights systemic lapses in the release of government dues to contractors and vendors despite verified work. It reinforces the judicial role in preventing administrative high-handedness and ensuring that legitimate financial claims are not stonewalled through procedural red tape. The ruling could serve as a precedent for similar cases involving delayed public procurement payments across other departments.
