Pronounced On:06.04.2026 vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir on 6 April, 2026

    0
    36
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Jammu & Kashmir High Court

    Pronounced On:06.04.2026 vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir on 6 April, 2026

    Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi

    Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi

                                                                     Sr. No. 06
                                                                                  2026:JKLHC-JMU:967
    
              HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                              AT JAMMU
    
                                                         WP(C) No.836/2026
    
                                                         Pronounced on:06.04.2026
                                                         Uploaded on: 07.04.2026
    
    
    M/S Satish Singh Jamwal & Co Pvt. Ltd.
    Through its Director Sh. Satish Singh Jamwal
    Age 62 years
    S/o Sh. Gupat Singh Jamwal
    R/o 52-E Sanik Colony, Jammu.                                    .....Petitioner(s)
    
                          Through: Mr. Manik Bhardwaj, Advocate
    
    
                     Vs
    
    1.   Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
         through Commissioner/Secretary to
          Government PW(R&B) Department,
         Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar
    
    2.   Chief Engineer, PW(R&B), Jammu
    3.   Superintending Engineer
         PWD(R&B), Jammu-Kathua Circle
         Jammu
    4.   Executive Engineer PWD(R&B)
         Construction Division- I, District Jammu
    
    
                          Through: Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG
    
    Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
    
                                        ORDER
    

    06.04.2026

    1. By this petition, the petitioner herein is seeking a direction upon the

    SPONSORED

    respondents to release the outstanding liability duly admitted by the

    respondents with respect to the contract works executed by the petitioner.

    It is prayed that the respondents be directed to release the outstanding

    payment of Rs.44,56,393/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from

    the date of completion of the work.

    WP(C) No.836/2026 2

    2026:JKLHC-JMU:967

    2. Pursuant to the declaration of the petitioner as L-1 with regard to E-NIT

    No.CD/1/29 of 2016-17 dated 10.06.2016, the respondents are stated to

    have issued allotment orders bearing, Nos.SEJ/-3439-41 dated 23rd July,

    2016, whereby the petitioner has been allotted execution of the work

    “providing and laying of wet mix macadam, 50 BM and 25mm SDBC on

    link road from Kulla to Laswara road in km 4/0km to km 8/600 (under

    City and Town programme)”. Subsequent to the allotment of the

    aforesaid works, post facto administration approval was accorded at an

    estimated cost of Rs.254.03 lacs. The petitioner is stated to have

    completed the allotted works.

    3. Respondents are stated to have released part payment in favour of the

    petitioner and the outstanding amount of Rs.44,56,393/- has not been

    released by the respondents till date. It is also stated that the liability has

    been admitted by the respondents, which is so reflected in various inter-se

    communications of the respondents, copies whereof are placed on record.

    According to the petitioner, several requests have been made to the

    respondents for release of the outstanding amount. Even, a legal notice

    has been issued to the respondents thereby calling upon the respondents to

    release the outstanding amount but all in vain.

    4. Petitioner herein is aggrieved of the inaction of the respondents for

    causing delay in releasing the balance payment due to him for execution

    of the works duly allotted by the respondents and, as such, is seeking

    direction upon respondents to release the outstanding amount of

    Rs. 44,56,393.00.

    WP(C) No.836/2026 3

    2026:JKLHC-JMU:967

    5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would feel satisfied if

    the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for

    release of the outstanding amount in his favour.

    6. Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG, on the other hands, would submit that

    the claim projected by the petitioner is time barred, however, he is not

    averse to the proposition made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

    7. Be that as it may, having regard to the submission made by learned

    counsel for the petitioner, the instant writ petition is disposed of at its

    threshold, with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim, after

    due verification of the bills of the petitioner, as projected in the writ

    petition, provided there is no legal impediment therefor, and take a

    decision thereon by passing a speaking order, within a period of two

    months from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the

    respondents, under rules. The decision so taken by the respondents shall

    be conveyed to the petitioner.

    (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi)
    Judge
    Jammu
    06.04.2025
    Vinod, PS
    Whether the order is reportable: No

    [ad_1]

    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here