JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order impugned being dated 30th November, 2002, which is a communication by the District Election Officer, Maharajganj, based on a committee report dated 3rd June, 1998. By such impugned order the claim of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 17,25,534/- was refused. It appears to this Court that in the 1991 Parliamentary Election was held, in which petitioner/contractor was entrusted to do certain works to be done without any formal agreement. However, ultimately the bills were settled and substantial amount of Rs. 35,10,000/- was paid to the petitioner keeping the aforesaid amount of Rs. 17,25,534/- due and payable. The authority has acted upon the bills in terms of such payment but since the said amount of bills was not paid, the petitioner repeatedly approached the authority to release the same. However, after eight years of such incident a Committee was constituted which said that whatever amount has already been paid that is the final and no further payment will be made. We do not find any evidence to come to such finding nor it could be, due to long lapse of time. Moreover, Committee held in the report that it is on the basis of guesswork in the present circumstances, although it was ascertained at that point of time. Therefore, they refused to pay the amount under the order impugned. 2. In such circumstances, the primary question arose before this Court whether such type of grievance can be raised before the Writ Court or not. In this regard, we have gone through the judgment reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553 , ABL International Ltd. and another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and others. Relevant portions of such judgment are quoted hereunder : “27. From the above discussion of ours, the following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition : (a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable. (b) Merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. (c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable. (b) Merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. (c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable. 51.......................Merely because the first respondent wants to dispute this fact, in our opinion, it does not become a disputed fact. If such objection as to disputed questions or interpretations is raised in a writ petition, in our opinion, the Courts can very well go into the same and decide that objection if facts permit the same as in this case. We have already noted the decisions of this Court which in clear terms have laid down that mere existence of disputed questions of fact ipso facto does not prevent a writ Court from determining the disputed questions of fact. (See Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, (1969) 3 SCC 769 ) 52......................The requirement of Article 14 being the duty to act fairly, justly and reasonably, there is nothing which militates against the concept of requiring the State always to so act, even in contractual matters. This factor alone is sufficient to import at least the minimal requirements of public law obligations and impress with this character the contracts made by the State or its instrumentality. It is a different matter that the scope of judicial review in respect of disputes falling within the domain of contractual obligations may be more limited and in doubtful cases the parties may be relegated to adjudication of their rights by resort to remedies provided for adjudication of purely contractual disputes. However, to the extent, challenge is made on the ground of violation of Article 14 by alleging that the impugned act is arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable, the fact that the dispute also falls within the domain of contractual obligations would not relieve the State of its obligation to comply with the basic requirements of Article 14. To this extent, the obligation is of a public character invariably in every case irrespective of there being any other right or obligation in addition thereto. An additional contractual obligation cannot divest the claimant of the guarantee under Article 14 of non-arbitrariness at the hands of the State in any of its actions.” 3. To this extent, the obligation is of a public character invariably in every case irrespective of there being any other right or obligation in addition thereto. An additional contractual obligation cannot divest the claimant of the guarantee under Article 14 of non-arbitrariness at the hands of the State in any of its actions.” 3. Therefore, we do not find any reason to reject the writ petition only on the ground of alternative forum for adjudication, to ascertain the facts and figures, when it has already been made by the authority and rejected the same. The clear case of the petitioner under the grounds of Writ Petition is that the action of the respondents to withhold the amount due to the petitioner is patently arbitrary, illegal and is violative of Article 14 and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has contended before this Court that the paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 of the counter affidavit are very relevant for the purpose, in which it has been said that the decision of the Committee is based on finding of fact which is based on evidence. 5. However, we do not find any such evidence at least from the Committee report. Development of case by way of affidavit cannot help the respondents. Therefore, taking into totality of the facts and figures of the case we are of the view that the order impugned being dated 30th November, 2002, based on the report of Committee dated 3rd June, 1998, cannot be accepted. Hence, the report of the Committee can be said to be non est in the eyes of law. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 30th November, 2002 is quashed. 6. As a result whereof, the petitioner is entitled to make an application along with a certified copy of this order before the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 within a week from this date and the authority concerned will do the needful within a period of one month from the date of making such application. However, subject to the decision when the fund will be released, the same will be coupled with interest @ 10% of simple rate from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment. 7. However, no order is passed as to costs. Honble V.C. Misra, J.—I agree. ————