JUDGMENT : (Deepak Roshan, J.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the release of a sum of Rs. 22,64,283/- (INR Twenty Two Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Three Only) along with the statutory interest towards certified paddy seeds against supply order bearing number 2511 dated 15.6.2017 which is not released by the respondent authorities on the false pretext of manufactured allegation against the Petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the supply order bearing number 2511 dated 15.6.2017, the Petitioner was directed to supply respective quantity of the certified paddy seeds in the district of Garwa, Palamu, Simdega, Chatra and Pakur. The supply order mandated that the supplies to be made by the Petitioner is to pass the germination and purity test and each unit ought to be bagged and tagged accordingly. The Petitioner was required to give information to the District Agriculture Officer with respect to the supply of each variety of seeds. The seeds were to be sold to the farmers after the deduction of the amount paid by the Government as grant. The supply order further mandated the supplier to re-collect the same seeds and provide replacement of the same within a reasonable time, in case the seeds fail the certification test. The supply order further cast a duty upon the District Agriculture Officer to collect three bags of each batch in presence of a representative of the supplier. One such bag was to be retained by the supplier (in this case the Petitioner), the second bag was to be retained by the District Agriculture Officer and the third bag was to be send for re-testing for the purpose of certification. 4. The Petitioner got the seeds produced by it tested by the Jharkhand Seed Certification agency and supplied the same only after getting a positive report. At the time of certification, the agency provided each sample with a batch number and would test the purity and the germination percentage of each batch and give a certificate to such effect. The certificate was valid for a period of 9 (nine) months. 5. At the time of certification, the agency provided each sample with a batch number and would test the purity and the germination percentage of each batch and give a certificate to such effect. The certificate was valid for a period of 9 (nine) months. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it supplied seeds to various districts of Jharkhand and issues were raised only with respect to the supplies made to only 7 (seven) localities of the District of Palamu. It has been further submitted that a total of 800.10 quintals of seeds were supplied to 13 different localities out of which issues were raised with respect to 440 quintals of seeds supplied to 7 (seven) districts. 6. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that in case of failure of germination of seeds, the Respondent was under obligation to put the Petitioner to notice, which was never done in the case at hand. Further, the seeds which were supplied in the District of Palamu, were tested by the Jharkhand Seed Certification Agency and yielded positive results. The said results have been tabulated by the Petitioner at page 15 of his petition and is supported by the documents attached as Annexure-3 of the writ petition. It is pleaded that the same batch of seeds certified by the Agency which were supplied to different districts yielded different results which clearly goes to show that the 4th Respondent was not diligent in the performance of his duties. Pursuant to the alleged failure, an FIR being Palamu Town PS Case 212 of 2017 was registered. The FIR was against the Petitioner. This FIR was only registered to harass the Petitioner and ultimately culminated in a closure report being filed & the case against the Petitioner was closed for want of evidence. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that no explanation was sought from it prior to the registration of the First Information Report being Palamu Town PS Case 212 of 2017 and it was only after the institution of the First Information Report that a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner. The Petitioner gave a reply to the said show cause notice wherein it was highlighted that Respondents were in fundamental breach of the terms of the supply order as no notice about failure of germination was ever served upon the Petitioner. The Petitioner gave a reply to the said show cause notice wherein it was highlighted that Respondents were in fundamental breach of the terms of the supply order as no notice about failure of germination was ever served upon the Petitioner. Further, the Respondent failed to make the payment within the time limit provided in the supply order. It has been further submitted that thereafter, the Respondent constituted a committee to enquire into the reasons behind the non-germination of the seeds supplied by the Petitioner. The first committee was under the Chairmanship of one Dr. M.K Singh; however, soon thereafter another committee was constituted under the chairmanship of Dr. Z. A. Haider. The Petitioner obtained the report of the committee by filing an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Petitioner submits that the report shows that no fault can be attributed to the Petitioner. 8. He further submits that a second application under Right to Information Act, 2005 was filed to obtain the germination test report and the date in which the sample was taken. The Petitioner submits that as per the reply, the sample for the seeds were taken on 13.7.2017; however, the date of tests were shown as April and May, 2017 i.e. prior to the procurement of the samples. On basis of the above, the Petitioner has made serious allegations of corruption, alleging that 4th Respondent in connivance with the others have conspired to sell the sub-standard seeds acquired from the open market by passing them off as certified. On basis of the above facts the Petitioner has made the following submissions:- (i) The Respondent committed fundamental breach of the terms of the supply order as no intimation was given to the Petitioner with respect to the failure of germination of the seeds so that the Petitioner could undertake the replacement of the said seeds; (ii) The Respondents acted as the judge of their own cause and the issuance of the show cause notice to the Petitioner was only eyewash. This is evident from the fact that show cause was issued to the Petitioner only after the initiation of the FIR. (iii) The reply of the Petitioner was never considered and no order was passed thereafter. (iv) The enquiry report submitted by the committee constituted by the Respondent itself attributed the mistake to the Respondent specifically the District Agriculture Officer. This is evident from the fact that show cause was issued to the Petitioner only after the initiation of the FIR. (iii) The reply of the Petitioner was never considered and no order was passed thereafter. (iv) The enquiry report submitted by the committee constituted by the Respondent itself attributed the mistake to the Respondent specifically the District Agriculture Officer. The report shows that the seeds supplied by the Petitioner were in the godown while on paper the same is shown to be distributed. The report clearly states that unnecessary hindrances were created by certain officials so that the enquiry could not be completed. The quality of the seeds was not tested in accordance with the terms of the supply order and no decision could be taken with respect to the quality of the seeds till the proper test reports are not made available. (v) Discrepancies in the Memorandum of Seed Analysis is apparent from the fact that the date of test is recorded as 15.5.2017 while the date when the sample was obtained is recorded as 13.7.2017. The Petitioner further submits that the supply order itself is dated 15.6.2017 and as such there is no possibility that the test could have been done prior to the supply order being issued. 9. In light of the aforesaid, the Petitioner submits that the Respondent have illegally retained the amount of Rs. 22,64,283/- (INR Twenty Two Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Three Only). The amount is admitted as the supply itself is not disputed and the quality of the supply cannot be questioned by the Respondent in light of the non-adherence to Clause 15 of the supply order. Further, as the test report is riddled with irregularities which shows that it cannot be relied upon to dispute the claim of the Petitioner. 10. Per contra, learned Associate Counsel to the Advocate General, Shri Piyush Chitresh submits that the payment of the seeds which were found to be genuine has already been made and the payment for the remaining cannot be made in light of the fact that they failed to meet the criteria as specified. He further submits that compliance of Clause 15 and Clause 24 of the supply order could not be made as the time of bicha (planting of seeds) was running out. He further submits that compliance of Clause 15 and Clause 24 of the supply order could not be made as the time of bicha (planting of seeds) was running out. It has been further submitted that attempts are being made to recover the amount due to the Petitioner from the concerned PACS and once the recovery is made, the amount shall be paid to the Petitioner. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the pleadings and the documents, this Court finds that the supply of the seeds by the Petitioner is not disputed by the Respondent. 12. The bone of contention is the quality of the seeds supplied by the Petitioner. The Respondents are placing reliance on the test report of the sample (attached as Annexure-10 Series) of the writ petition to show that the seeds supplied by the Petitioner were sub-standard. However, despite several opportunities, the Respondent-State has not been able to controvert or give any acceptable explanation to the striking and apparent irregularities in the report. The report states that the test was done on 13.5.2017 and the samples were collected on 13.7.2017, while the supply order itself is dated 15.6.2017. These three dates cannot be reconciled in any possible manner. It is impossible that the tests could be done before the supply order was released. Further, the date of test is prior to the date of collection of the samples. The said report defies all forms of logic. This has been specifically pleaded by the Petitioner for which no reply has been given by the Respondent State. 13. Further, the report of the committee constituted by the State-Respondent has clearly stated that it could not complete its enquiry and cannot make any comment with respect to the quality of the seeds sans a proper test report. However, the committee has clearly stated that the 4th Respondent has failed to give proper response to its queries and he was negligent in the performance of his duties. 14. At this stage we also think it necessary to refer the pleadings of the parties. However, the committee has clearly stated that the 4th Respondent has failed to give proper response to its queries and he was negligent in the performance of his duties. 14. At this stage we also think it necessary to refer the pleadings of the parties. The Petitioner has made specific allegation of fundamental breach of the terms of the supply order by the Respondents and has said that the test were not carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Clause 24 of the supply order and further no notice was issued to it under Clause 15, when the seeds supplied by it allegedly failed to germinate. This aspect of the matter is also admitted by the Respondents as it has tried to justify the same by showing urgency as the time of planting of the seeds was running out. 15. Having given due consideration of the aforesaid facts and pleadings, we are having no hesitation in holding that the action of the Respondents reflect that it has acted in the most arbitrary manner and the amount due to the Petitioner has been withheld in the most illegal manner; not only in violation of the terms of the supply order but also the law of the land. The Respondent have acted as a judge of their own cause and have tried to justify their action on basis of report(s) which on the face of it cannot be accepted by any prudent person. 16. The contention of the State that there are several disputed facts and the amount does not come within the purview of “admitted dues” do not hold merit as it has failed to provide even one acceptable explanation or document to show that the Petitioner was or even could have been responsible for the seeds not germinating. Rather the documents, attached with the writ (the veracity and genuineness of which is not disputed by the Respondent) manifestly show that State was at fault as each and every level. It has not only failed to send a notice to the Petitioner for the alleged deficiency in quality but also failed to conduct the tests in accordance with the timeline as specified in the supply order. It has not only failed to send a notice to the Petitioner for the alleged deficiency in quality but also failed to conduct the tests in accordance with the timeline as specified in the supply order. The test reports relied upon by State goes to state something which is impossibility and lastly the enquiry could not be completed by the committee constituted by the State itself due to impediments and hinderance created by its own officials. 17. We, while exercising the jurisdiction under Art. 226 cannot shut our eyes when such gross irregularities of the State authorities are apparent. The Court is bound to protect any citizen from the State or its instrumentality in case where it acts in an unfair, unjust, unreasonable manner in discharge of its obligations under even in case of commercial matter. The attending facts of the case demonstrates the apparent arbitrariness on the part of the State which not only offends article 14 of the Constitution of India but it also infringes Right of the petitioner under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The Respondents have failed to show any acceptable or even probable justification to withhold the payment of the Petitioner on their part. 18. In light of the above observation, we hereby direct the Petitioner to submit a fresh calculation of the amount due, to the 2nd Respondent along with a copy of this order. The calculation submitted by the Petitioner shall contain the total amount which was payable for the entire seeds supplied by it as per the supply order bearing number 2511 dated 15.6.2017 and shall thereafter deduct the amount which the Respondent-State has paid to the Petitioner, if any. The remaining amount shall be paid by the concerned Respondent within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of submission of the calculation along with simple interest at the rate of 6% to be computed from the date of filing the instant writ petition to the date of actual payment. The facts of the case reveal that the Petitioner has been harassed by the officials of the State, perhaps to hide their own inefficiencies and accordingly it is directed that a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (INR One Lakhs Only) be paid to the Petitioner in addition to the above amount. The responsibility to ensure that the payment is made to the Petitioner is fastened upon the 2nd Respondent. 19. The responsibility to ensure that the payment is made to the Petitioner is fastened upon the 2nd Respondent. 19. As a result, the instant writ petition stands allowed. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed.