1. The petitioner, through the medium of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks direction in the nature of writ of Serial No. mandamus commanding upon the respondents to implement the communication No.FCDI/4099-4100 dated 26.11.2021 issued by Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division Jammu, vide which, the official respondents have admitted their liability amounting to Rs.4,09,942/- along with interest on account of works executed by the petitioner pursuant to allotment orders issued by the respondent- Department, towards the petitioner in Serial No.3 in the communication (supra).

2. The case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, is that the petitioner is a leading A Class Contractor running his concern under the name and style of M/S Gucchu Ram Government Contractor and has been executing number of works for the respondent-Department from time to time; that the petitioner has successfully executed several projects in the past to the satisfaction of the department.

3. It has been pleaded that the official respondents had allotted work i.e. Construction of protection work in Balole Nallah for the protection of Shamshan Ghat of Village Miran Sahib R S Pura, issued in response to Letter No. FCDL/DB/3212-14 dated 08.09.2018 for an amount of Rs.6,13,851/- and approved by Superintending Engineer Hydraulic Circle Jammu vide approval letter No. SE/HYD/DB/7491-92 dated 09.10.2018; that the petitioner executed the aforesaid works, strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the allotment orders and within the stipulated period. Upon completion of the works, the work-done bills were prepared and verified by the concerned officials of the respondent-department; that despite execution and completion of the allotted works, the respondents failed to release the admitted liability in favour of the petitioner, thereby rendering him high and dry.

4. Petitioner claims that he repeatedly approached the respondents for release of the outstanding payments and ultimately served a Legal Notice No. DA/09/2k21 dated 24.09.2021 to respondents 2 to 4, demanding release of the admitted amount against the works executed by him; that in response to legal notice, petitioner received a communication from respondent no.3-Executive Engineer to respondent no.4-Superintending Engineer Hydraulic Circle Jammu vide No.4099-4100 dated 26.11.2021 for the arrangement of funds and wherein it was admitted that work was allocated to petitioner and claims, in regard to work executed by him, were lying in division office for clearance of liability, admitted the allotment and execution and completion of work done and also the balance amount for payment of Rs.4,09,942/- to the petitioner.

5. Respondents in their objections have stated that the present writ petition is misconceived and not maintainable in law, as no legal or constitutional right of the petitioner has been infringed. It is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court merely on the basis of contractual claims. The respondents, however, did not dispute the execution of the work during the year in question. The stand taken by the respondents is that the said works were undertaken without following mandatory codal formalities such as Administrative Approval and Technical Sanction, which are pre-requisites under Rules 9.2 and 9.3 of the Jammu & Kashmir Financial Code, and note below Chapter 3.15 of the Book of Financial Powers, and Rule 136(I) and (II) of the General Financial Rules, 2017.

6. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that neither funds were available during the relevant financial year, nor the alleged works were reflected in any approved works programme of the department. According to the respondents, no prior permission or approval was obtained from the competent authority before undertaking the said works.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite repeated departmental, inter se, communications, acknowledging execution of works and existence of liability, the admitted amount has not been released in favour of the petitioner till date; that the petitioner has suffered immense financial hardship, on account of inaction on the part of the respondents. It is prayed that respondents be commanded to make payment.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that in terms of circular instructions issued by the Finance Department vide No.A/40(2017)-492 dated 26.04.2021 and instructions issued by the Director General, Audit and Inspections, on 28.02.2020, old claims are required to be scrutinized strictly in the light of codal formalities, including e-tendering, Administrative Approval and Technical Sanction. According to the respondents, the petitioner’s claim does not satisfy the prescribed norms and, therefore, cannot be cleared under the present financial regime.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter.

10. From the pleadings on record, it emerges that the respondents themselves have acknowledged execution of the works in question and preparation of bills thereof. The communications dated, 08.09.2018, 05.10.2018 and 09.10.2018 placed on record unmistakably demonstrate that the departmental authorities had admitted the existence of liability towards the petitioner and had sought release of funds for liquidation of the claim. The only ground projected by the respondents for withholding payment is alleged non-compliance with codal formalities, such as e-tendering, Administrative Approval and Technical Sanction.

11. The sole question that arises for consideration is:

                     “Whether the State can lawfully deny payment to a contractor for public works, admittedly, executed to its satisfaction, solely on the ground of non-compliance with internal procedural requirements such as Administrative Approval and Technical Sanction.”

12. The preliminary objection of the respondents regarding maintainability of the writ petition is unsustainable where the liability is undisputed. It is wellsettled that when the State or its instrumentalities acknowledge financial liability through official records, they cannot avoid payment on technical or procedural grounds. The Apex Court in ABL International Ltd. v. ECGC, (2004) 3 SCC 553, the Supreme Court held that writ jurisdiction is maintainable for enforcement of public law obligations arising from contracts, particularly where facts are undisputed. In Surya Constructions v. State of U.P., (2019) 16 SCC 794, the Hon’ble Supreme Court again held that where liability is admitted in official communications, the High Court need not relegate the petitioner to a civil remedy merely on the ground that the matter arises out of a contract. Arbitrary non-payment of admitted dues violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

13. With respect to the plea of non-compliance with codal formalities, it is well-settled that a contractor who acts upon official work orders is entitled to presume that necessary approvals may have been duly obtained. The maxim omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta applies squarely. This Court in WP(C) No. 2198/2022 (decided on 04.12.2025) M/S Rightway Constructions Company v. UT of J&K, has held that a contractor executing work on the basis of valid government orders has a legitimate expectation of payment. In WP(C) No. 73/2024 (decided on 06.02.2026,) M/S Krishna Engineering Works v. Jal Shakti Department, it was held that the State cannot deny payment on the ground of post-facto discovery of absence of Administrative Approval or Technical Sanction, once the work has been executed and measured. Similarly, in WP(C) No. 13/2021 (decided on 11.11.2024) Bilal Ahmad Mir v. UT of J&K, it was observed that internal administrative compliance is not the concern of the contractor.

14. The State cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong or retain benefits of work executed without payment. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court of India, in State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal & Sons, (AIR 1962 SC 779), has held that where a person lawfully performs work for another, who enjoys its benefit, compensation must follow under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

15. Any procedural lapses in observing e-Tendering, obtaining Administrative Approval or Technical Sanction are matters for internal departmental action and cannot be used to defeat legitimate claims of a contractor who has acted in good faith. It is neither in control of the petitioner-Contractor to observe the codal formalities, such as, issuance of e-tendering, administrative/technical approval, nor it was for him to ensure/assure the departmental codal formalities. The departmental engineers were the officers, who were to satisfy the codal formalities.

16. Having regard to the admitted facts that the petitioner had executed the work on allotment by the respondent-Flood Control Division and as per the admitted inter se communications for release of funds to satisfy the liability of Rs.4,09,942/- in favour of petitioner and the enunciation of law by the Apex Court and this Court in the judgments (supra), it can be safely held that respondents are under a legal obligation to liquidate the liability, to which petitioner is entitled to receive on account of execution of work in question.

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to verify, process, and release the admitted liability of Rs. 4,09,942/- in favour of the petitioner for the works executed under the relevant allotment order(s). The respondents are directed to release the total amount, to which petitioner is admitted to have executed the work, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

18. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of as allowed along with connected application(s).