#public contract

Public authorities cannot evade payment for work executed on their oral instructions when an official committee has verified the scope and value of the work. Refusal to pay under such circumstances constitutes unjust enrichment, entitling contractors to recovery even without a written contract - a critical safeguard for government contractors relying on administrative directives.

Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that indefinite withholding of finalized public contract payments (Rs. 12.79 lakh) under the guise of a vigilance enquiry is arbitrary and violates Articles 14, 19, and 300-A of the Constitution. The court directed payment within 13 weeks upon submission of a security bond, reinforcing contractors' rights against administrative delays.

The Calcutta High Court has clarified that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to enforce payment for public works when core facts - such as the validity of the work order or existence of prior administrative sanction - are genuinely disputed and require evidentiary inquiry. This reinforces that contractual disputes with factual complexity must be resolved through civil suits, not constitutional remedies, safeguarding judicial efficiency and procedural fairness in public contract disputes.

Andhra Pradesh High Court mandates completion of administrative processes within 10 weeks and payment of dues within 4 weeks thereafter for certified public works, holding bureaucratic delay cannot justify non-payment. Contractors are entitled to timely remuneration as a matter of contractual right, enforceable under writ jurisdiction.