Tarun Agarwala & Rajan Roy, JJ. – The petitioner executed certain works under the work orders issued by the Irrigation Department in the year 2005-06. It is alleged that the work orders were executed within the stipulated period to the satisfaction of the authority. 2. In para 5 of the writ petition it has been contended that the bills were prepared as per the contract which was evaluated by the Assistant Engineer and approved by other authorities. The bills amounting to Rs.15,24,164 have not been paid till date inspite of every efforts made by the petitioner. In para 8, the petitioner contends that a legal notice under section 80 C.P.C. was given to the respondents, pursuant to which a reply was given wherein the respondents have admitted the liability to pay the said amount subject to the allocation of necessary budget. This reply was given in the year 2010, inspite of which the payments were not made. Consequently the present writ petition was filed. 3. A counter-affidavit was filed by the Assistant Engineer on behalf of the Irrigation Department admitting the contents of paras 5, 8 and 9 of the writ petition namely the amount as per the bills, but the respondents contended that the claim has now become barred by limitation and, therefore, the said amount cannot be paid to the petitioner. 4. Today the Engineer in Chief Sri Awadh Naresh Gupta has filed an affidavit taking fresh grounds while contesting the matter on merits. The said respondent contended that the bills were not sent as per Clause 6 of Form No. 111 nor any registered notice was sent to the Incharge relating to completion of work. Further Clause 7 of the condition of the agreement of Form 111 was also not complied with and consequently the bills of the petitioner could not be processed. 5. The Court finds upon a perusal of the affidavits and after hearing the learned Counsel for the State Government for the Irrigation Department that the stands taken by the Irrigation Department is untenable. Para 5 of the writ petition is admitted by the respondent in their counter-affidavit, namely that the bills were presented by the petitioner which was processed and approved by the respondent authorities. 6. Para 5 of the writ petition is admitted by the respondent in their counter-affidavit, namely that the bills were presented by the petitioner which was processed and approved by the respondent authorities. 6. The legal notice given by the petitioner which has been stated in para 8 of the writ petition is also admitted by the respondents in their reply to the said notice in which they have categorically admitted that the bills would be cleared as and when budgetary allocation is made. 7. The stand of the respondent that the claim of the petitioner has become barred by limitation is only an afterthought to defeat the claim of the petitioner on technical grounds. The Court is of the opinion that since the bills of the petitioner was presented within the period of limitation of 3 years. The non processing of these bills and non payment does not make these bills barred by limitation. By not processing the bills, the period of limitation does not come to an end nor does it become barred by limitation. 8. The contention of the respondents that certain clause of the agreement/form orders were not complied by the petitioner is again an afterthought and cannot be considered at this belated stage. Such grounds had not been indicated while replying to the legal notice or while filing the counter-affidavit. At this stage new grounds cannot be allowed to be taken in a supplementary-affidavit. Such contention appears to be patently erroneous especially when the respondents have admitted that the bills of the petitioner was duly processed and approved by the respondent authorities. 9. In the light of the aforesaid, it is clear that the Irrigation Department is taking a technical ground for defeating the claim of the petitioner. The Court finds that the bills are admitted. The amounts mentioned in the bills are also admitted but for reasons best known to the respondents, the bills are not being cleared. 10. This petition is consequently allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued directing the Engineer in Chief, Irrigation Department Lucknow to release the payment within a week from today alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per annum, failing which it would be open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before this Court for recovery of the amount. 11. 11. Since a clear case is made out where the respondents are responsible, the Court hereby imposes a cost of Rs. 50,000 which shall also be paid by the Engineer in Chief. Rs. 25,000 shall be paid to the petitioner and balance Rs. 25,000 shall be paid to the High Court Legal Services Cell Committee. Petition Allowed. ___________