Judgment Petitioner seeks a direction, by way of writ of mandamus, in the name of respondents to implement communication no.HB/Accts/3055 dated 10th August 2015, issued by Managing Director, J&K Housing Board, Jammu, with a further a further direction to respondents to release admitted liability to the tune of Rs.115.14 Lacs approximately in favour of petitioner. 2. When instant writ petition was taken up for consideration at its threshold on 30th January 2018, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, disposed of the same on the following lines: “Taking into account the nature of order which this Court proposes to pass today, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents. Heard. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the respondents to release an amount of Rs.115.14 lacs, which is due and payable to the petitioner on successful completion of the contracts by the petitioner. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting the attention of this court to the documents contained in Annexure-D submitted that the Dy. General Manager, Housing Board Unit-II, Jammu has admitted the amount which is payable to the petitioner, however, till today, the aforesaid amount has not been paid to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.3 to make payment of the admitted amount which is due and payable to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of along with connected MP.” 3. Against aforesaid Order dated 31st January 2018, a Letters Patent Appeal, being LPA no.177/2018, was preferred. The Appeal succeeded and Order dated 31st January 2018 was set-aside, remanding back the matter to the Writ Court for further consideration. It is in consequence of above that writ petition on hand has come up for consideration before this Court. 4. It is the case of petitioner that he is a leading Contractor by profession. The Appeal succeeded and Order dated 31st January 2018 was set-aside, remanding back the matter to the Writ Court for further consideration. It is in consequence of above that writ petition on hand has come up for consideration before this Court. 4. It is the case of petitioner that he is a leading Contractor by profession. Respondent J&K Housing Board Jammu is said to have invited tenders for execution of work, i.e. construction of Multipurpose Hall at Narwal Jammu, Multipurpose Hall at Rajiv Nagar, Multipurpose Hall at Sarwal Jammu, Constructions of Lanes at Rajiv Nagar Narwal, Construction of community Palace at Gurkha Nagar Bagh-e-Bahu, Construction of lanes/Drains at Gurkha Nagar, Bagh-e-Bahu, Multipurpose Hall at Rajiv Chowk Narwal and Multipurpose hall at Mohalla Tarkhana Narwal Jammu. Petitioner, being successful bidder, was allotted said work. While executing the allotted work by petitioner, it is pleaded, officials of respondent department visited the allotted sites and appreciated the work executed by him. Allotted works were completed by petitioner well within prescribed time; certificate to that effect was also issued, followed by submission of bills by petitioner. Respondent Department, according to petitioner, has released only Rs.10.00 Lacs out of Rs.125.14 Lacs and balance amount of Rs.115.14 Lacs is yet to be released in favour of petitioner due to some of their internal bottlenecks. It is averred that respondent no.5 vide letter no. HUD/ Plan/JKHB/145/ 2014 dated 11th April 2016 furnished the clarification vis-à-vis execution of work. It is also contended that respondent No.2 vide letter no. HB/Accts3055 dated 10th August 2015 requested respondent No.4 to release the funds to the tune of Rs.125.14 Lacs for clearance of liabilities. However, payment was not released, forcing petitioner to approach this Court with writ petition on hand. 5. Reply has been filed by respondents. They insist therein that authorities of Housing Board had taken up some government work of Planning and Development Department and some funds have been used from Housing Board Exchequer with the assurance from Government (Planning Department) that the same can be released from the government funds as such some funds have been paid from the exchequer of Housing Board for some of the works done by various agencies. Respondents maintain that Housing Board is short of funds. Respondents maintain that Housing Board is short of funds. It is also contended that non-payment of government projects and liability in the present case is also of Government Department, i.e. Planning and Development Department, and matter for release of payment of work done by petitioner and likewise cases stand already taken up with Director, Planning and Development Department, vide letter No. HB/Actt./3055 dated 10th August 2015, besides with Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department vide HB No.7508 dated 4th February 2016. It is further averred that piece-worker has executed the work during 2013-14 and 2015 and it is included in pending liabilities as no funds have been released by the Government during this period and report in this regard has also been submitted to Housing and Urban Development Department vide letter No. HB /Acctt/9798-99 dated 2nd March 2017 as reminder and as and when the funds would be made available by the Government the same would be released to the petitioner after due verification. 6. Heard and considered. 7. First and foremost, it is the obligation of the State/Union Territory Government to discharge its public duties fairly, justly and reasonably which are requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also public function of the Government to discharge its obligations to public fairly, justly and reasonably. It is no more res integra that even in contract works and also in entering into contract agreement with private party the Government cannot act like a private individual inasmuch as the Government has to act justly, fairly and reasonably even in contractual field and the State/UT Government’s constitutional obligations coexists with contractual obligations. Respondents, in the admitted facts mentioned above, have failed to discharge their obligations to public to act fairly, justly and reasonably which are the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as requirement of discharging obligations of the State to the public fairly, justly and reasonably is extended even in contractual matters and therefore, in such circumstances the writ petition is maintainable. Having said that, it is not in dispute that petitioner has executed the works allotted to him. Non-payment of admitted liability has been tried to be fastened to non-availability of funds by respondents. Having said that, it is not in dispute that petitioner has executed the works allotted to him. Non-payment of admitted liability has been tried to be fastened to non-availability of funds by respondents. The contention of respondents that authority, which allots funds for clearance of liabilities, have changed from Planning Department to Finance Department, will not wriggle out respondents of their obligations to act fairly, justly and reasonably. Once petitioner has executed the work and it is admitted by respondents as well, then in such situation it is an obligation of respondents to release all that is due to petitioner, without any further delay or alibi. 8. For the reasons discussed above, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to release the admitted liability, whatever due to petitioner, after fulfilling the codal formalities, within a period of two months from the date copy of this order is served upon them by petitioner.