ORDER The petitioner had raised bills for supply of medicines to Central Jail, Muzaffarpur, to the extent of Rs. 4,03,895.23 paise. Petitioner received payment to the extent of Rs. 2,76,713/- only. Initially, the defence of the respondents was that the bills were not traceable in their office. It was not the defence that the bills were not submitted in their office and petitioner re-submitted those bills. The matter was entrusted to the Executive Magistrate to check the bills. The Executive Magistrate submitted a report to the Collector, which has been annexed as Annexure A to the supplementary counter affidavit, filed today. In that supplementary counter affidavit it is clearly admitted that all supplies, pursuant to the 12 bills, were entered but in the supply order, there was technical defect and it is because of that technical defect in the supply order, that payments are now being denied. In my view, the ground is totally misconceived in facts and in law and cannot be upheld by this Court. 2. As a matter of fact supply having been received is not denied. If supply having been received and accepted are not denied, then the law is simple. It must be paid, for no services are gratuitous. Respondents having right to reject the goods when supplies were made, they did not reject the goods rather accepted and utilised them. That having been done on technicality they cannot reject payment. Even the technicalities are concerned, they are fault of the respondents. If bills and purchase order are vanished from the office of the respondents the petitioner cannot suffer, for he made supply, which is not disputed. If supplies were made and accepted by the respondents, respondents cannot now turn around and deny payment to the petitioner. That having only ground for denying payment it is found unsustainable in law. Thus, I am left with no option but to direct respondent no. 3 that the balance amount be also paid to the petitioner for the goods already supplied. Payment must be made within a period of one month from today alongwith the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date it was due because defence being taken by the respondents is totally unsustainable. 3. With the above observations and directions this writ petition stands disposed of. 4. Let a copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the State.