JUDGMENT : M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. 1. The petitioner in the writ petition was awarded a contract by the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Hazaribag under the National Rural Drinking Water Programme (NRDWP) for construction of Mini Rural Pipe Water Supply System in village Barikola Jhonjhi vide a contract dt. 06.03.2013 and in another village-Dato Kala also on the same date (Annexures-1 & 2). 2. Pursuant thereto, work orders were issued and the petitioner completed the works and handed over the Mini Rural Pipe Water Supply System to the authorities in both the villages and has filed Annexure-3 letter dt. 15.04.2017 in support of the same. 3. Petitioner has placed reliance on Annexure-5 letter dt. 24.11.2018, in which the Respondent 4 had requested for release of funds from Respondent 2 for payments for the works completed under Mini Rural Water Supply Scheme 4197, CRF and others, which also mentions the two contracts given to petitioner, and contends that there is an admission of liability on part of respondents to make him payments indicated therein for the works executed by him. 4. Petitioner contends that he had made a claim before the respondents and demanded the admitted dues through two representations dt. 17.08.2020 (to Respondent 2 and to Respondent 4), two representations dt. 22.02.2021 (to Respondent 2 and to Respondent 4), one representation dt. 14.03.2022 (to Respondent 4) and two representations dt. 13.06.2023 (to Respondent 2 and to Respondent 4)(Annexure-4 series). 5. Petitioner contends that the inaction of the respondents in making payment the admitted dues despite completion of work is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14, Art.19(1) (g) and Art.300 A of the Constitution of India and seeks a direction to the respondents to pay the same without further delay with interest. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is not denied that the respondents had received the Annexure-4 series of representations made by the petitioner. It is also not stated in the counter affidavit that at any point of time a reply was given to the petitioner denying the liability to make the said payment. Thus, the respondents had maintained absolute silence all through. 7. It is also not stated in the counter affidavit that at any point of time a reply was given to the petitioner denying the liability to make the said payment. Thus, the respondents had maintained absolute silence all through. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is alleged stand is taken that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of delay and laches as the matter is of the year 2012 and 2013.In Ram Chand v. Union of India , (1994) 1 SCC 44 it was held that while considering the question of delay and laches in filing a Writ Petition, the Court also has to consider the inaction on the part of the authorities who had to perform their duty. The authority cannot contend that its failure to perform its duty within a reasonable time would be inconsequential.This aptly applies to the instant case. 8. Also the respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong in not giving any response to the petitioner in spite of his representations for payment of the amount claimed under the contracts awarded to him and seek to non-suit the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches.In Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others , (2007) 11 SCC 447 , the Supreme Court had held that no party can take undue advantage of his own wrong quoting its previous citation in Union of India Vs. Major Gen Madan Lal Yadav (Retd.) , (1996) 4 SCC 127 . This was also reiterated in M.K. Shah Engineers and Contractors vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , (1999) 2 SCC 594 . In Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others , (2020) 2 SCC 569 , it was held: “ Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a constitutional Court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it.” (Emphasis supplied) Considering the stand taken by the respondents discussed below, which shocks the judicial conscience, this is a fit case not to accept the plea of delay and laches. 9. It is settled law that mere failure or inaction to pay does not lead to the inference about the existence of a dispute [See Major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi v. DDA , (1988) 2 SCC 338 ]. 10. It is further contended by respondents that the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact and that there is a claim and counter claim by both parties. 11. We shall demonstrate why such a plea cannot be countenanced in the facts and circumstances of this case and why it is to be held to be an afterthought and a plea totally lacking in bona fides. 12. The defence is that through a letter dt. 28.05.2015, payment under the scheme of NRDWP was closed, and a condition was imposed that if a work allotted was not completed, then the work should not be resumed till further direction. The said letter is filed as Annexure-B. It is contended that in spite of putting such embargo, the petitioner in connivance with the Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer resumed the work and completed the work in 2017 after a lapse of four years from the date of award of the work and, that the department has initiated action against the then Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer vide Annexure-C dt. 28.09.2024. 13. It is not the case of the respondents that they had informed the petitioner immediately after issuance of the above letter or at any time before the filing of the writ petition that payment under the scheme had been closed through Annexure-B dt. 28.09.2024. 13. It is not the case of the respondents that they had informed the petitioner immediately after issuance of the above letter or at any time before the filing of the writ petition that payment under the scheme had been closed through Annexure-B dt. 28.05.2015.If the Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer had allowed the petitioner to continue the work even after the said date, why the department waited from 2015 to 28.09.2024 (i.e. after filing of the Writ Petition) to initiate disciplinary action against them, is also not explained. 14. We may point out that the so-called defence is raised for the first time in the counter affidavit filed in 2025 and does not appear to have been communicated to the petitioner at any point of time in the past upto the filing of the Writ Petition. Thus this plea is an afterthought and a malafide plea taken simply to deny the claim of petitioner. 15. Admittedly the respondents had allowed the petitioner to continue to execute the work even after May, 2015 and accepted the completed work from the petitioner without demur in 2017. They are estopped from now raising such technical pleas to defeat the petitioner’s claim.This is because the petitioner had executed the work on the basis of contracts/work orders awarded to him lawfully by the respondents and who had not intended to do so gratuitously and also since the respondents are enjoying the benefit of the works done by the petitioner.So they are bound to make compensation to the petitioner under Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872 cannot avoid the same by taking false and vexatious defences. 16. As regards Annexure-5 relied upon by the petitioner which clearly mentions at serial nos. 5 and 6 the contracts awarded to the petitioner (indicating that the work was continued and indicating the amounts payable to the petitioners), it is not denied at all by the respondents. 17. In Popat Rao Vyankatrao Patil Vs. 16. As regards Annexure-5 relied upon by the petitioner which clearly mentions at serial nos. 5 and 6 the contracts awarded to the petitioner (indicating that the work was continued and indicating the amounts payable to the petitioners), it is not denied at all by the respondents. 17. In Popat Rao Vyankatrao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and others , (2020) 19 SCC 241 , the Supreme Court has held that Governments should be model or ideal litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice, and that they should meet honest claims and should not overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity. The State is expected to be fair and just to its citizens and should not take technical plea to defeat legitimate and just claim of citizens. The Supreme Court followed its judgment in Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner vs. Mohan Lal , (2010) 1 SCC 512 and Dilbagh Rai Jarry Vs. Union of India and others , (1974) 3 SCC 554 . 18. As we have pointed out above, the conduct of the respondents is grossly unfair and it is clear that not only are they trying to take advantage of their own wrong, but they are putting forth false, frivolous and vexatious pleas to deny the just claims of the petitioner. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- the respondents are directed to compute the amount payable to the petitioner for the works executed by the petitioner, within two months from today, and pay to the petitioner the same with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of completion of the work till the date payment is actually made.