NEW DELHI: Can a contractor approach a high court to recover unpaid construction bills from government authorities? The Allahabad high court has held that admitted contractual dues cannot be withheld indefinitely and directed Uttar Pradesh authorities to pay a contractor Rs 14.24 lakh. In an October 8, 2026, order, the court allowed a petition filed by a construction company over unpaid dues for work carried out for a nagar panchayat.Why did the contractor approach the high court?According to the court order, the contractor said it had completed the work but had not received the full payment. It initially claimed that against bills of Rs 41 lakh, only Rs 12.56 lakh had been paid, leaving Rs 28.43 lakh outstanding.The firm said it had sought payment through an application dated July 14, 2025, followed by reminders on August 29, 2025, and May 25, 2026, but the dues remained unpaid.After the high court asked the executive officer of Nagar Panchayat, Chandauli, to clarify whether the claimed amount was admitted, the authorities filed an affidavit detailing the work orders, bills and payments already made.The affidavit showed that Rs 7,92,580 remained unpaid against the first work order. The authorities said they were willing to consider payment of this amount. A further Rs 6,31,890 was linked to a measurement book entry, but the contractor had not submitted a proper bill in the prescribed format. The relevant form was incomplete and lacked the required signatures and completion certification.Can a contractor recover unpaid bills through a writ petition?The bench of Justice J J Munirand Justice Indrajeet Shukla examined whether a contractor could seek payment under Article 226 of the Constitution, which empowers high courts to issue directions to public authorities.Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s Utkal Highways Engineer and Contractors v Chief General Manager, the bench noted that a writ petition seeking payment of money is not barred in every contractual dispute.“Be that as it may, the high court has not dealt with the merits of the writ petition. Moreover, it is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a writ petition may lie. Further, throwing a writ petition on ground of availability of alternative remedy after 10 years, particularly, when parties have exchanged their affidavits, is not the correct course unless there are disputed questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence,” the Supreme Court observed, as noted in the court order.The bench also referred to earlier rulings explaining that high courts ordinarily should not decide contractual claims involving serious factual disputes that require detailed evidence. However, admitted dues may be enforced through writ jurisdiction when authorities fail to pay them without justification.The bench found that the authorities had clearly admitted the outstanding amount of Rs 7,92,580 against the first work order. It directed payment of this amount and also ordered payment of Rs 6,31,890 linked to the second work order, subject to completion of the required formalities.“Be the case as it may, the amount of Rs.7,92,580/- against the first work order is an absolute admission, thus, the same shall be paid, whereas the remaining amount of Rs.6,31,890/- with regard to second work order shall also be paid by respondent no.4 subject to completion of the necessary formalities as indicated in the personal affidavit of respondent no.4, note of which has been taken by this court and is mentioned in this order. The petitioner shall complete the necessary formalities within two weeks from today and will raise a fresh bill with regard to second work order,” the bench said.The bench further directed the contractor to submit the fresh bill within two weeks and ordered the authorities to pay the admitted dues within the following four weeks. It also granted simple interest at 6 percent per annum on the admitted dues from the dates they fell due until actual payment.“The bill with respect to the second work order shall be raised within a fortnight from today. The entire admitted amount/dues shall be paid to the petitioner with promptitude i.e., within next four weeks without any delay. The petitioner shall also be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum upon the entire admitted dues from the date same fall due till the actual realization/payment is made,” the bench concluded.The high court allowed the writ petition and made no order as to costs.