JUDGMENT
R.M. Prasad, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for direction to the respondents concerned to take necessary steps for making payment of admitted dues of Rs. 1,29,727/- in connection with Agreement No. 4 of 1992-93 and, further of Rs. 74,435/- in connection with Agreement No. 5 of 1992-93.
2. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner completed the work within time with respect to Agreement Nos. 4 and 5 of 1992-93 and necessary entries were made in the M.S. No. 216, 164 and 236 respectively. In paragraph 13 of the writ petition it is stated that against Agreement No. 4, payment of Rs. 5,13,706/- and against Agreement No. 5, payment of Rs. 5,88,647/-were made in different instalments. Since thereafter the petitioner personally approached the concerned authorities, but no appropriate action has yet been taken.
3. Notice of this writ petition was served on the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents, including the Secretary, Chief Engineer (North), Administrative Officer and other officials of the Minor Irrigation Department on 15.7.2003, but no counter affidavit was filed.
4. Earlier on 7.4.2003 the matter was passed over to enable the respondents to file counter affidavit and come with redressal of the grievance of the petitioner.
5. Today, however, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department and the Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division (respondents No. 2 and 6 respectively) in which the facts and claim raised in the writ petition have not been disputed. However, they ventured to take a technical objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition.
6. I am unable to accept the said approach of the respondents. In the said counter-affidavit reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Limited, reported in 2002 (1) BLJR 35. In the said case, where the facts were seriously disputed, the Apex Court held that the writ is not the remedy for enforcing contractual obligation on the premise that when alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to the litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy. However, it was made clear by the Apex Court that equally, the existence of alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to issue writ but ordinarily that would be a good ground in refusing to exercise the discretion under Article 226.
7. This Court fails to appreciate the manner in which the respondents have responded in the present case. The writ petition was filed on 30th July, 2003. Yet till date neither the facts nor the claim have been disputed in the counter-affidavit which is filed today. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, the claim of the petitioner stands admitted and thus denial of due payment to the petitioner is wholly arbitrary and mala fide.
8. The writ petition is thus, allowed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the Secretary and the Executive Engineer, who are the concerned authorities, from their pocket to the petitioner within a week. The said respondents are directed to pay the aforementioned amount as claimed by the petitioner within the said time, failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to file two pages affidavit for initiating action against them.