ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition while praying for the following reliefs : "7.1 To call for entire relevant record from the respondents for its kind perusal and consideration. 7.2 To quash the order dated 19-11-2019 (Annexure-P/3). 7.3 To issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the bill/cheque amount of the petitioner along with the interest on delayed payment. 7.4 . Respondent may further kindly be directed an restricting from acting illegally and causing deliberate loss to the petitioner. 7.5 Any other relief this Hon'ble Court may deed fit and proper may also kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner along with the cost of litigation." 2. The facts as elaborated in the memorandum of writ petition reflect that, the petitioner is a proprietorship firm, engaged in the business related to medicines, equipments and furniture etc.. 3. In pursuance of the order dated 02-6-2017 and 03-06-2017 issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Umaria, the petitioner was required to supply different equipments viz. OT lights, advance LED single dome. 4. It is further asserted in the petition that another order dated 6-62017 was issued and the petitioner then was directed to supply pulses, OXIMETRY TABLE TAKE MODLE OF QUANTITY 10 and then vide order dated 7-6-2017, the petitioner was directed to supply adult diapers (10 pads) quantity 500. The said goods/items supplied by the petitioner. Despite all endeavours were made by the petitioner, payment towards the said supply was not being made by the petitioner and, lastly after repeated efforts of the petitioner a cheque of Rs.1680000/- bearing No.044810, dated 25-7-2017 was issued to the petitioner. 5. When the said cheque was submitted by the petitioner with his Bank, the same was dishonoured. The petitioner then had to take recourse to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondents. 6. The petitioner issued a notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was replied by respondents. The respondents did not dispute their liability to make the payment, however, certain constraints were expressed and the petitioner herein, was assured that payment would be made to the petitioner. Being influenced by said assurance of the respondents, the petitioner returned the said dishonoured cheque to respondents on their request. 7. Unfortunately, thereafter respondents made no efforts to make payment to the petitioner and they were sitting tight over the matter. Being influenced by said assurance of the respondents, the petitioner returned the said dishonoured cheque to respondents on their request. 7. Unfortunately, thereafter respondents made no efforts to make payment to the petitioner and they were sitting tight over the matter. Inaction on the part of the respondents then behoved the petitioner to file another petition before this Court, vide W.P. No.15111/2018. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 2-11-2018, directing the respondents to take a decision on petitioner's representation. 8 . In pursuance of the order of this Court, the respondents vide impugned order dated 19-11-2019 has rejected the representation of the petitioner. Thus, assailing the order dated 19-11-2019 this petition is filed. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that reply to the notice issued to the respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is ample enough to establish, that the respondents have accepted their liability unequivocally. The respondents also assured the petitioner that payment would be made, as soon as funds are made available, and the petitioner was then persuaded by respondents to return the cheque which was earlier dishonoured. 10. Accordingly, in view of the assurance given by respondents, the petitioner returned the cheque. Thus, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that, later on respondents could not have taken recourse to complete volte-face and rejected the representation of the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 1911-2019, contained in Annexure-P/3. 11. It is also contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that issuance of supply orders, which are annexed along with WP No.15111/2018, were never disputed by respondents and goods in response to the said supply orders, were received by respondents and this is also undisputed. 12. Subsequently during pendency of the petition, the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Umaria, vide his communication dated 9-01-2023, has recommended the Director, Finance, Directorate - Health Services, Bhopal, to release the outstanding of the petitioner amounting to Rs.1680000/-. The Chief Medical & Health Officer, Umaria, has also requested, vide his communication dated 25-01-2023 for budget allocation as well in order to make payment of Rs.1680000/- to the petitioner. 13. Thus, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in view of the communication dated 9-01-2023 as well as 25-01-2023 which have been issued during the pendency of this writ petition and brought on record along with the writ petition vide IA. 13. Thus, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in view of the communication dated 9-01-2023 as well as 25-01-2023 which have been issued during the pendency of this writ petition and brought on record along with the writ petition vide IA. No.2079/2023, now the matter stands in a narrow compass and the respondents be directed to forthwith release the said amount along with interest to the petitioner. 14 . Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that in terms of order passed by this Court in W.P No.15111/2018, the representation of the petitioner was duly mulled over by respondents and a detailed order was passed on 19-11-2019. A perusal of the order dated 19-11-2019 reflects that without inviting any tender, supply orders in favour of the petitioner were issued. Accordingly, since very inception there were irregularities which did not entitle the petitioner for payment towards the alleged supply made by the petitioner. 15. It is also contended by learned counsel for respondents that other responsible employees, who were part of the entire transaction, were also confronted with disciplinary action. Accordingly, taking into consideration, the entire aspects of the matter, the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Umaria, has passed the detailed order on 19-11-2019 and and has rejected the representation of the petitioner. 16. However, learned counsel for State does not dispute that during pendency of the petition, there are communications dated 9-01-2023 and 25-012023, which have been brought on record along with I.A. No.2079/2023 and also the communication dated 23-7-2021. 17. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the records. 18. Undisputed facts in the writ petition are to the effect that, pursuant to the supply orders which are contained in Annexure-P/1, Annexure-P/2, Annexure-P/3 and Annexure-P/4, were filed along with W.P. No.15111/2018, the petitioner herein, was directed to supply items which were detailed in the aforesaid supply orders. The petitioner also made supply in response to the aforesaid supply orders. Therefore, it is undisputed that goods have been delivered by the petitioner and it is not the case of the respondents, that the petitioner did not supply any goods which are detailed in Annexure-P/1 to Annexure-P/4 filed along with WP. No.15111/2018. 19. Undisputedly, a cheque of Rs.1680000/- was issued to the petitioner and the said cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. No.15111/2018. 19. Undisputedly, a cheque of Rs.1680000/- was issued to the petitioner and the said cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. When a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was issued by the present petitioner to the respondents, the respondents responded to the said notice by filing a reply, dated 11-9-2017. 20 . A perusal of the said reply of the respondents makes it abundantly clear, that the respondents never disputed petitioner's assertions regarding supply of goods and non-payment of bills of the petitioner. Paras 4,5,6 and 7 of the reply being relevant for adjudication of the instant writ petition, are being reproduced hereunder : 21. Perusal of the aforesaid stand of the respondents palpably reveals, that the respondents have accepted that the petitioner has supplied goods in terms of supply orders and the respondents themselves have issued a cheque to the petitioner of Rs.1680000/-. The said cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient fund and the respondents assured the petitioner that payment would be made within a reasonable time upon allocation of budget. 22 . Accordingly under the garb of the said assurance, the petitioner was persuaded to return the cheque and the same was accordingly returned by the petitioner to the respondents. Later on, while rejecting the representation of the petitioner, there is a complete volte face at the behest of the respondents, denying the payment to the petitioner. 23 . So far as eligibility of the petitioner as regards payment is concerned, there was no dispute at any point of time before issuing the impugned order. The reasons and grounds which have been elaborated in the impugned orders, were never taken recourse to by the respondents at any point of time. If the petitioner was not entitled for any payment, as to why the respondents issued a cheque of Rs.1680000/- in favour of the petitioner, and when the said cheque was dishonoured, there was no occasion to assure the petitioner to shall be made payment again. 24 . Thus, once the respondents have accepted their liability, in response to the notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, now cannot resile from their promise, which finds mention in their reply to notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 25 . 24 . Thus, once the respondents have accepted their liability, in response to the notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, now cannot resile from their promise, which finds mention in their reply to notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 25 . Even otherwise, communications issued during pendency of the petition, which have been brought on record along with I.A. No.2079/2023, reflect that the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Umaria, himself has recommended the Director, Finance, Directorate of Health Services, Bhopal, to release payment of Rs.1680000/- in favour o the petitioner. There is a communication seeking budget allocation as well, dated 25-01-2023. 26. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has no hesitation to hold that rejection of representation of the petitioner is an adroit attempt on the part of the respondents, to somehow dispute the claim of the petitioner. The respondents having accepted their liability, while issuing the cheque of Rs.1680000/- and also giving assurance upon dishonour of the same for release of the payment, rejection of representation of the petitioner by the respondents on the face of it, is capricious and highhanded. 27. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19-11-2019 contained in Annexure-P/3 is quashed. Respondents are directed to release the payment of Rs.1680000/- forthwith in favour of the petitioner along with rate of interest at the rate of 6% p.a from 25-7-2017 [ i.e. the date on which initial payment of Rs.1680000/- was made], till actual payment. 28. The payment in terms of this order shall be made to the petitioner, within a period of 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Failing which, the interest as ordered by this Court, will be enhanced to 9%. 29. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.