In Brief
A contractor performed extra work for the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, which was expressly sanctioned and executed satisfactorily. The State acknowledged the debt of Rs 113.29 lacs but failed to pay for years. When the contractor filed a writ petition, the High Court wrongly dismissed it on grounds of disputed questions of fact. The Supreme Court held that there was no factual dispute—the amount was undisputed—and that courts can interfere under Article 226 when the State acts arbitrarily, even in contractual matters. The Court directed immediate payment with 6% interest.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.