Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Bhat Traders Through Ghulam vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir on 16 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 3445/2023 Reserved on: 07.04.2026
CM No. 8339/2023 Pronounced on: 16.04.2026
Uploaded on: 17 .04.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
Bhat Traders through Ghulam
Mohammad Bhat
Aged 70 Years, S/O Abdul Kabir Bhat ,
R/O Brane Nishat
.... Petitioner(s)
Through:- Mr. Mian Tufail, Adv
vs
Union Territory of Jammu And Kashmir
through Commissioner Secretary To
Govt. Tourism Department Civil
Secretariat Srinagar
1. Managing Director, Jammu And
Kashmir, Tourism Development
Corporation, TRC, Srinagar
2. Executive Engineer, Jammu And
.....Respondent(s)
Kashmir, Tourism Development
Corporation, Srinagar
3. Accounts Officer ,JKTDC Limited,
Srinagar
Through:- Mr. Hakeem Aman Ali, Dy.AG
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts
1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking release
of an amount of ₹64,99,000/-, which, according to him, has
been withheld by the respondents despite being admitted.
WP(C) No. 3445/2023 Page 2 of 16
2. The case of the petitioner, is that he is a contractor who was
allotted various works by the respondent Corporation. The
petitioner asserts that he has duly executed all the works
entrusted to him and submitted work-done statements along
with the requisite bill sheets.
3. It is pleaded that the competent authority of respondent
department, including the Executive Engineer and Assistant
Executive Engineer, issued communications from time to time
recommending release of payments, thereby acknowledging the
liability of the respondents.
4. According to the petitioner, although part payments were
released in certain cases, a substantial amount remains unpaid
without any lawful justification.
5. It is further averred that the petitioner repeatedly approached
the respondents for release of the withheld amount; however,
the same was deferred on one pretext or the other, including
paucity of funds.
6. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner served a legal notice dated
06.11.2023 upon the respondents, but the same failed to evoke
any response, constraining the petitioner to approach this
Court.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mian Tufail submits
that the petitioner has completed all the works in accordance
with the terms and conditions governing the allotments and has
submitted all requisite bills and supporting documents.
8. It is contended that upon completion of the works, the
competent officials of the respondent department, including
the Executive Engineer JKTDC and Assistant Executive
Engineer JKTDC , addressed various communications to the
Accounts Officer recommending release of payments in favour
WP(C) No. 3445/2023 Page 3 of 16
of the petitioner, thereby clearly acknowledging the liability of
the respondents
9. It is further submitted that, despite such acknowledgment, the
respondents released only part payments in certain works,
while substantial amounts in respect of several works have
been withheld without any lawful justification. The total
amount so withheld, according to the petitioner, aggregates to
₹64,99,000/-.
10.Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has repeatedly
approached the respondents for release of the admitted dues;
however, on each occasion, the matter was deferred on the
pretext of paucity of funds.
11.It is also submitted that the petitioner, being aggrieved of the
continued inaction on the part of the respondents, served a legal
notice dated 06.11.2023 upon the respondents, calling upon
them to release the withheld amount, but the same evoked no
response.
12.Learned counsel further submits that despite such
acknowledgment, the respondents have arbitrarily withheld the
admitted dues, which is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
13.It is further submitted that once, the work has been executed
and the liability stands admitted, the respondents are under a
legal obligation to release the payment, and the continued
withholding thereof is unjust and unsustainable.
14.It is also submitted that the petitioner, having incurred
expenses in execution of the works, had a legitimate
expectation that the admitted dues would be released within a
reasonable period.
15.It is also submitted that the petitioner, being aggrieved of the
continued inaction on the part of the respondents, served a legal
notice dated 06.11.2023 upon the respondents, calling upon
WP(C) No. 3445/2023 Page 4 of 16
them to release the withheld amount, but the same evoked no
response
16.Learned counsel submits that the failure of the respondents to
release the payment has caused grave financial prejudice to the
petitioner and has adversely affected his livelihood.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
17.Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Hakeem Amaan Ali Dy AG
appearing for the respondents raised preliminary objections
with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition.
18.It is contended that no fundamental or statutory right of the
petitioner has been violated and, therefore, the present writ
petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this
ground alone.
19.It is further submitted that the writ petition involves disputed
questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
and the petitioner ought to be relegated to an appropriate forum
for determination of such disputes.
20.Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the
petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy available in the
form of a civil suit for recovery of money and, therefore, the
writ petition is not maintainable.
21.It is contended that the writ petition is devoid of merit and has
been filed on incorrect and misleading premises. It is submitted
that the petitioner has projected the works in question as having
been allotted through a tendering process, whereas, in fact, the
works were allotted on a “job order basis” by the then
management of the Corporation without issuance of any formal
tenders.
22.It is further submitted that out of the works claimed by the
petitioner, full payment in respect of certain works has already
WP(C) No. 3445/2023 Page 5 of 16
been released, including the bill deposit amount, and the
petitioner has wrongly included the same in the present claim.
23.Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is fully aware that
the balance payments in respect of certain works have been
withheld for valid reasons.
24.It is contended that the works in question were executed
without adherence to the prescribed codal formalities and
without proper budgeting or financial sanction. From that
standpoint, the works are stated to be unauthorized and,
therefore, do not bind the respondent Corporation.
25.It is further argued that the petitioner, being fully aware that the
works had been allotted without following due procedure and
without compliance with codal formalities, chose to execute the
same at his own risk and cannot now seek recovery of such
amounts by invoking writ jurisdiction.
26.Learned counsel also submits that the matter regarding such
claims was considered by the Corporation in light of the
applicable financial rules and Government instructions,
including the relevant circulars issued by the Finance
Department.
27.It is submitted that, upon such consideration, the claims of the
petitioner and other similarly situated contractors were found
not to be admissible at that stage on the account that the works
had been allotted on a job order basis by the then management
,the cost of works exceeded permissible limit and the works
were undertaken without availability of sufficient funds and
without proper financial sanction.
28.In light of the aforesaid, it is contended that the petitioner is not
entitled to any relief and the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
WP(C) No. 3445/2023 Page 6 of 16
LEGAL ANALYSIS
29.The respondents have contended that no fundamental or
statutory right of the petitioner has been violated and, therefore,
the writ petition is not maintainable. It is no longer res integra
that arbitrary action on the part of the State or its
instrumentalities is amenable to judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The guarantee of equality
under Article 14 mandate that every State action must be fair,
reasonable and non-arbitrary.
30.It is trite that Article 226 of the Constitution is not confined
merely to enforcement of fundamental rights, but extends to
“any other purpose”. The scope of this jurisdiction is wide
enough to encompass cases where State action is arbitrary,
unfair, or unreasonable.
31.At this stage, it becomes necessary to examine the settled legal
position governing the maintainability of writ petitions in
contractual matters involving the State. The determination of
maintainability, in such cases, hinges upon whether the dispute
involves a public law element, inasmuch as it is now well
settled that while purely private contractual disputes ordinarily
do not warrant interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, but where the action of the State or its
instrumentalities is alleged to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or
unfair, thereby attracting the mandate of Article 14. In such
circumstances, the present writ petition is clearly maintainable
and warrants consideration by this Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
32.In this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joshi
Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India & Ors
reported as 2015 (7) SCC 728, has held that:
“The distinction between public law and private law
element in the contract with State is getting blurred.
However, it has not been totally obliterated and where the
matter falls purely in private field of contract. This Court
WP(C) No. 3445/2023 Page 7 of 16has maintained the position that writ petition is not
maintainable. Dichotomy between public law and private
law, rights and remedies would depend on the factual
matrix of each case and the distinction between public law
remedies and private law, field cannot be demarcated with
precision. In fact, each case has to be examined, on its
facts whether the contractual relations between the parties
bear insignia of public element. Once on the facts of a
particular case it is found that nature of the activity or
controversy involves public law element, then the matter
can be examined by the High Court in writ petitions
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to see
whether action of the State and/or instrumentality or
agency of the State is fair, just and equitable or that
relevant factors are taken into consideration and
irrelevant factors have not gone into the decision making
process or that the decision is not arbitrary.”
33.In the present case, the grievance of the petitioner is not merely
contractual in nature, but pertains to arbitrary withholding of
dues which are asserted to be admitted and the withholding of
admitted dues by a State instrumentality, despite
acknowledgment of liability, introduces a clear element of
arbitrariness, thereby attracting Article 14. Accordingly, this
Court holds that the present writ petition is maintainable , as
the dispute is not purely private but involves a significant
public law element. Such action, if established, would clearly
fall within the ambit of judicial review under Article 226.
34.The respondents have further contended that the writ petition
involves disputed questions of fact and, therefore, cannot be
adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The execution of works by the
petitioner is not denied. The respondents do not dispute that the
works were carried out at their instance and for their benefit.
The controversy raised in the instant matter is essentially with
regard to the permissibility of payment on account of alleged
procedural irregularities.
35.In the present case, the respondents are State instrumentalities,
and the allegation is of arbitrary withholding of admitted dues.
Compelling the petitioner to undergo the civil trial, despite
WP(C) No. 3445/2023 Page 8 of 16
prima facie acknowledgment of liability, would defeat the ends
of justice.
36.It is settled law that mere existence of disputed questions of
fact, does not operate as an absolute bar to the exercise of writ
jurisdiction, particularly where the foundational facts are not
seriously disputed or can be adjudicated on the basis of the
material on record.
37.The Hon’ble Apex Court in (Special Leave Petition (C)
No.14350/2022) titled as M/S Utkal Highways Engineers
And Contractors Versus Chief General Manager & Ors
decided on 08.01.2025 has unequivocally held that:
“8. Be that as it may, the High Court has not dealt
with the merits of the writ petition. Moreover, it is
not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be
adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be
considered an arbitrary action on the part of
respondents and for claiming the same, a writ
petition may lie.1 Further, throwing a writ petition
on ground of availability of alternative remedy after
10 years, particularly, when parties have exchanged
their affidavits, is not the correct course unless there
are disputed questions of fact which by their very
nature cannot be adjudicated upon without
recording formal evidence.”
38.In the present case, the execution of works by the petitioner is
not denied. The communications placed on record prima facie
indicate acknowledgment of liability. The issue, therefore, does
not involve complex factual adjudication but rests primarily on
appreciation of admitted documents. Consequently, this Court
finds no reason to relegate the petitioner to an alternate remedy
and holds that the writ petition is maintainable in the given
facts and circumstances.
39.The principal defence of the respondents rests on the assertion
that the works were executed without adherence to codal
formalities, without proper financial sanction, and on a job
WP(C) No. 3445/2023 Page 9 of 16
order basis, therefore, the Corporation is not bound to make
payment.
40.At the outset, it needs to be emphasized that the respondents do
not dispute the execution of the works. It is also not in dispute
that the works were executed at the instance of the respondent
Corporation and that the Corporation has derived benefit
therefrom.
41.The record further reveals that the respondents issued
communications recommending release of payments. Such
recommendations are indicative of acknowledgment of
liability.
42.The question that arises is whether the respondents can run
away from their liability on the ground of internal procedural
lapses or non-compliance with codal formalities.
43.A perusal of the record reveals that the total value of the works
executed by the petitioner aggregates to approximately ₹81.10
lakhs, out of which an amount of ₹28.86 lakhs has been
released by the respondents from time to time, leaving a
substantial balance of ₹52.24 lakhs unpaid. What assumes
significance is that the liability of the respondents is not in
dispute, inasmuch as the competent authorities of the
respondent Corporation themselves have, on multiple
occasions, acknowledged the same. In particular, the Executive
Engineer, vide communication no. JKTDC/EE/M&W/2560
dated 21.11.2015, addressed to the Accounts Officer, JKTDC,
specifically recommended the release of payment in favour of
the petitioner, thereby clearly evidencing that the works
executed by the petitioner .The official communications leave
no manner of doubt that the liability of the respondents stood
admitted.
44.Notwithstanding such unequivocal acknowledgment, the
respondents have released only part of the admitted amount,
while withholding the balance amount without any justifiable
WP(C) No. 3445/2023 Page 10 of 16
cause. The continued withholding of the remaining amount,
despite the aforesaid communication and absence of any legal
impediment, is manifestly arbitrary and unsustainable. The
conduct of the respondents, in retaining the admitted dues of
the petitioner, not only lacks bona fides but also falls foul of
the principles of fairness and reasonableness governing State
action.
45.The amount remaining unpaid stands duly substantiated from
the record placed before this Court. The statements of accounts,
coupled with the communication issued by the competent
authorities of the respondent Corporation, clearly demonstrate
that while part payments have been effected, a substantial
balance amount continues to remain outstanding. The official
record, furnished by the respondents themselves, indicate that
against the total value of works executed, a sum of ₹52.24
lakhs remains unpaid.
46.Once the execution of the works by the petitioner stands
admitted, the respondents cannot be permitted to question the
same at this belated stage. The record unequivocally reflects
that the works were carried out at the instance of the
respondent Corporation and were duly verified and
acknowledged by the competent authorities. Having accepted
the execution of the works and having acted upon the same by
issuing recommendations for release of payment, the
respondents are clearly estopped under law from disputing
either the execution or the entitlement of the petitioner.
47.Moreover, the conduct of the respondents in deriving benefit
from the works executed and, thereafter, seeking to deny
liability on untenable grounds, is wholly impermissible. The
respondents cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at
the same time, as such a course would strike at the very
foundation of fairness and reasonableness. Once the execution
is admitted and the benefit thereof has accrued to the
WP(C) No. 3445/2023 Page 11 of 16
respondents, the corresponding obligation to honour the
payment cannot be evaded. Any attempt to do so would not
only be contrary to settled legal principles but would also
amount to unjust enrichment at the cost of the petitioner, which
this Court cannot countenance.
48.This Court, in WP(C) 3061/2023 titled Mohd Ashraf vs UT
of J&K decided on 25.02.2026 has observed as under:
“This Court is of the considered view that the duty of the
State to pay for work executed and enjoyed is a
constitutional obligation flowing from Article 14, and
delay in seeking enforcement of such right cannot absolve
the State from its responsibility. Article 14 of the
Constitution of India guarantees equality before the law
and equal protection of laws. The jurisprudence under
Article 14 has evolved far beyond formal equality; it now
encompasses the principle that State action, whether
legislative, executive, or contractual, must not be
arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. The Government,
when entering into contracts or dealing with contractors,
does not shed its constitutional obligations. Unlike a
private party, the State is bound to act as a model
litigant. Once the liability is admitted, such as when work
is duly executed, measured, and certified, the withholding
of the payment without justification amounts to arbitrary
action and thus falls foul of Article 14.”
49.Applying the aforesaid principle to the present case, this Court
is of the view that the respondents cannot be permitted to evade
their liability on the plea of internal procedural lapses or non-
compliance with codal formalities, particularly when the
execution of work is not in dispute and the benefit thereof has
been derived by the State. The obligation of the State to make
payment for work executed is not merely contractual but
carries a constitutional mandate under Article 14, enjoining
fairness and non-arbitrariness in its actions. Once the liability
stands acknowledged, the withholding of payment without any
justifiable cause amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and
cannot be sustained. The respondents, being State
instrumentalities, are expected to act as model litigants and
WP(C) No. 3445/2023 Page 12 of 16
cannot take advantage of their own administrative lapses to
deny legitimate dues of the petitioner.
50.Once it is established that the petitioner executed the works and
the respondents derived benefit therefrom, the respondents
cannot be permitted to avoid payment by citing their own
internal irregularities.
51.The contention that the petitioner executed the works at his
own risk, is liable to be rejected. The works were carried out on
the directions of the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner
cannot be penalized for procedural lapses attributable to the
respondents themselves.
52.The plea of non-availability of funds is equally untenable. The
Financial constraints cannot absolve the State of its obligation
to discharge admitted liabilities.
53.This view is further fortified by a judgment rendered by this
Court in M/s Saint Solider Engineer and Contractor Pvt Ltd
vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors, decided on 26.09.2025,
wherein it has been held as under:
“20. It is well settled that execution of work gives rise to
a corresponding obligation upon the State to honour its
financial commitments. Any administrative approval or
availability of funds is a matter to be ensured by the
department prior to the allotment of work. After the
execution of the contract, no “post facto” objection can
be raised to deny or delay payment.
21. This Court is constrained to observe that in
numerous cases involving government contracts, despite
completion of work in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the contract, the payments due to
contractors are not released in a timely manner. The
delay is often attributed to administrative reasons, such
as the need for administrative approval or the alleged
paucity of funds or the funds being diverted to other
projects to frustrate the claim of the contractors. In the
present case as well, despite admitted liability and due
completion of work by the petitioner well in time the
payment has been unjustifiably withheld for a
considerable period of time.
WP(C) No. 3445/2023 Page 13 of 16
54.This Court is of the view that once the work is allotted and
executed, the State is under a binding obligation to honour its
financial commitments, and issues, such as administrative
approvals or non-availability of funds cannot be raised as post
facto justifications to deny payment. The respondents, having
permitted execution of works and having derived benefit
therefrom, cannot withhold the admitted dues on the ground of
internal administrative constraints or lack of funds. Such
conduct is not only unjustified but also contrary to the settled
principles governing State action, and therefore cannot be
sustained in law.
55.Time and again, Courts have deprecated the practice of
withholding legitimate dues on the pretext of paucity of funds,
holding that such a defence is neither legally sustainable nor
morally tenable.
56.The contention that certain payments have already been made
does not dilute the liability of the respondents in respect of the
remaining amount. Partial discharge of liability cannot be used
as a shield to justify withholding of the balance amount.
57.The material on record clearly establishes that the petitioner
executed the works entrusted to him. The respondents derived
benefit from such works. The officials of the respondents
acknowledged the liability by recommending release of
payment;
58.Despite such acknowledgment, the balance admitted dues have
not been released. The conduct of the respondents, in
withholding payment without any lawful justification, is
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
59.The petitioner, having altered his position and incurred
expenditure in execution of the works, had a legitimate
expectation that the respondents would honour their obligation
within a reasonable time.
WP(C) No. 3445/2023 Page 14 of 16
60.The prolonged withholding of payment has not only caused
financial hardship to the petitioner but also undermines the
principles of fairness and reasonableness in State action.
61.Recently, this Court has reiterated the aforesaid position in M/s
Lumber India Corporation v. UT of J&K (WP(C) No.
733/2023, decided on 10.04.2026), wherein it was once again
emphasized that the State cannot withhold admitted dues for
works executed and enjoyed, on the pretext of administrative
constraints or paucity of funds, and that such action would be
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. For the facility of reference same is reproduced as
under:
“It must be emphasized that once the State has availed
the benefit of work executed, it is under a corresponding
obligation both legal and constitutional to ensure timely
payment. Any failure in this regard strikes at the core of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which mandates
fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness in State
action.
In these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate
not only to grant relief to the petitioner but also to
reiterate, that the State must put in place an effective
mechanism to ensure that admitted dues are released
without compelling parties to seek judicial redress.”
62.This Court finds that the petitioner has established a clear legal
right to seek release of the admitted dues and the petitioner is
also entitled to interest on the delayed payment, as denial of
such interest would amount to permitting the respondents to
unjustly retain the money of the petitioner.
CONCLUSION
63.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the action of the respondents in
WP(C) No. 3445/2023 Page 15 of 16
withholding the admitted dues of the petitioner is arbitrary,
unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. The preliminary objections raised by the respondents,
both with regard to maintainability as well as on merits, do not
withstand judicial scrutiny and are accordingly rejected.
64.The material on record clearly establishes that the petitioner
has executed the works, the respondents have derived benefit
therefrom, and the liability stands acknowledged. In such
circumstances, the continued withholding of payment is wholly
unjustified and cannot be sustained in law.
65.This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the State and its
instrumentalities are expected to act as model litigant and
uphold the highest standards of fairness. Permitting the
respondents to deny admitted dues on the pretext of internal
procedural lapses or paucity of funds would strike at the very
root of the rule of law.
66.This Court had directed the petitioner to file a supplementary
affidavit to place on record the complete details of the amount
yet to be paid, however, despite grant of sufficient opportunity,
the petitioner has failed to comply with the said direction. The
Registry has also reported that no such supplementary affidavit
has been filed. In these circumstances, this Court proceeds to
consider the matter on the basis of the material available on
record, more particularly the admitted position regarding the
amount payable to the petitioner.
67.Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed and the
respondents are directed to consider the release of admitted
amount in favour of the petitioner to the tune of ₹52.24 lakhs
(fifty two lakhs and twenty four thousands) , within a period of
four (04) weeks from the date a copy of this order, along with
writ petition and annexures are made available to respondents,
in case, if there is no other legal impediment. It is made clear,
failing such compliance within the stipulated period, the
WP(C) No. 3445/2023 Page 16 of 16
petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the
aforesaid amount from the date the said amount was due and
not paid by respondent.
68.It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioner claims any
amount over and above the admitted liability, he shall be at
liberty to file a detailed representation within a period of two
weeks before the appropriate respondent and shall also be at
liberty to place on record the requisite documents evidencing
the factum of such liability. Upon filing of the said
representation along with supporting documents, the
respondents shall consider the same within a further period of
two weeks thereafter and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law.
69.The writ petition is disposed of, along with all connected
application.
(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)
JUDGE
Srinagar
16.04.2026
Shamim/PS
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
