Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
M/S Lumber India Corporation vs Union Territory Of J And K And on 10 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 733/2023 Reserved on: 07.04.2026
CM No. 1730/2023 Pronounced on: 10 .04.2026
CM No. 5002/2024 Uploaded on: 15.04.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
M/S LUMBER INDIA CORPORATION
THROUGH ITS CO-PROPRIETOR GHULAM
NABI DAR (SENIOR CITIZEN)
AGED 69 YEARS, S/O LATED ABDUL
REHMAN DAR, R/O BEMINA SRINAGAR
.... Petitioner(s)
Through:- Mr. M.Y. Bhat, Sr. Adv. and
Mr. Hamza Prince , Adv
Vs.
1. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND
KASHMIR THORUGH
COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY
TO GOVT. TOURSIM DEPARTMENT
CIVIL SECRETARIATE SRAINGAR
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, JAMMU .....Respondent(s)
AND KASHMIR, TOURSIM
DEVLOPENT CORPORATION, TRC,
SRINAGAR
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, JAMMU
AND KASHMIR, TOURISM
DEVELOPMENT COORPORATION,
SRIANGAR
4. JAMMU AND KASHMIR, SMALL
SCALE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
COORPORATION THORUGH ITS
GENERAL MANAGER PROJECTS
KASHMIR
Through:- Mr. Hakeem Aman Ali, Dy.AG
Mr.Waseem Gul, GA for R-4
WP(C) No. 733/2023 Page 2 of 17
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking
the writ jurisdiction of this Court, inter alia, seeking a direction for
release of admitted dues arising out of works duly allotted by the
respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that the works stood
executed in accordance with the approved specifications and to the
satisfaction of the competent authorities, yet the admitted amount
payable has remained withheld for several years without any
justifiable cause.
2. It is averred that despite repeated representations and sustained
efforts made by the petitioner for release of its legitimate dues, no
effective steps were taken by the respondents, thereby constraining
the petitioner to approach this Court.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER;
3. The Learned counsel Mr. Hamza Prince for the petitioner submits
that the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate
directions for release of admitted dues arising out of works duly
executed by the petitioner pursuant to allotments made by the
respondents. It is contended that the petitioner has fulfilled all
contractual obligations, and the works in question stand completed
in accordance with the approved specifications and to the
satisfaction of the concerned authorities.
4. It is further submitted that the inaction on the part of the respondents
is arbitrary and unreasonable, being violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India, and contrary to the statutory mandate
contained in the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
Development Act, 2006, which obligates timely payment along with
interest in case of delay.
5. It is submitted that M/s Lumber India Corporation is a registered
Small Scale Industrial Unit engaged in the construction of new
buildings, renovation of old structures, and manufacture of joinery
WP(C) No. 733/2023 Page 3 of 17
items/furniture and has undertaken works for various Government
Departments and its performance, including quality of construction
and supply of goods, has consistently been found satisfactory.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner unit has been
executing construction works and supplying joinery/furniture items
and materials to Government Departments and Government-owned
Corporations through the Jammu and Kashmir Small Scale
Industrial Development Corporation.
7. It is submitted that respondent No. 3, vide communication dated
15.12.2014, requested SICOP to furnish a pro-forma bill for
construction of a hut at Tourist Village Cheshma Shahi. In response
thereto, the Project Engineer, SICOP, vide communication dated
06.01.2015, furnished a detailed cost estimate with a request for
acceptance of the offer and release of funds for execution of the
work.
8. It is further submitted that the Project Engineer, SICOP, vide
communication dated 16.01.2015, authorized the petitioner unit to
undertake construction of a 2 BHK Hut (Duplex) at Tourist Village
Cheshma Shahi, with a direction to complete the work expeditiously
in accordance with the specifications contained in the estimate.
9. It is submitted that a similar order was placed by the Project
Engineer, SICOP, vide communication dated 06.10.2016, for up
gradation/renovation of Hut No. 216 at Cheshma Shahi belonging to
the Jammu and Kashmir Tourism Development Corporation.
10.It is contended that the aforesaid works, entrusted through SICOP,
were duly executed by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the
concerned authorities by engaging requisite manpower and
resources. It is submitted that although certain payments were
released from time to time, an admitted balance amount of ₹47.47
lakhs has remained unpaid since the year 2017. Despite repeated
efforts, the balance payment has not been released, compelling the
petitioner to lodge a grievance before the SICOP Grievance Cell,
WP(C) No. 733/2023 Page 4 of 17
which culminated in a communication dated 19.02.2021 addressed
to respondent No. 2.
11.It is further submitted that despite continuous follow-up and
representations since 2015, no effective steps have been taken by the
respondents to redress the grievance of the petitioner, leaving no
option but to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition.
12.It is submitted that once the work orders stood executed, the
respondents became legally bound to release the payments due to
the petitioner. The respondents, being Government entities, have
unjustifiably withheld the legitimate dues of the petitioner for
several years despite having derived full benefit from the works
executed.
13.It is contended that the respondents cannot evade their liability on
the ground of non-availability of funds. It is submitted that the works
were consciously allotted and, upon completion, were taken over by
the concerned department.
14.It is further submitted that in terms of the provisions of the Micro,
Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, particularly
Sections 15, 16 and 17 thereof, the respondents are statutorily bound
to make payment within 45 days from the date of acceptance of the
work. In case of delay, the buyer is liable to pay compound interest
at three times the bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India,
calculated on a monthly basis. Accordingly, the petitioner claims
entitlement to the principal amount along with statutory interest.
15.It is submitted that the actions and omissions of the respondents are
arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of settled legal principles as
well as statutory provisions. Such action is in contravention of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the
petitioner has been unjustly deprived of legitimate dues, adversely
affecting its business. The withholding of payment for years together
is arbitrary and without justification, infringing upon the legal rights
of the petitioner. It is, accordingly, prayed that the writ
WP(C) No. 733/2023 Page 5 of 17
petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to release the
admitted amount along with statutory interest.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
16.Per contra, two sets of replies have been filed by respondents no.
1,2,3 and 4. Respondents No. 1 to 3, in their reply, have contended
that Respondent No. 4 (SICOP) functions merely as a facilitator
between the indenting Government Departments and the registered
SSI Units. It is submitted that once the work is executed to the
satisfaction of the indenting department, the payment is released in
favour of Respondent No. 4, which in turn disburses the same to the
concerned SSI Unit. It is contended that no payment has been
released by the indenting department and, therefore, no liability can
be fastened upon the respondent no. 4.
17.It is further submitted that no cause of action has accrued to the
petitioner against the respondent no.4 and, as such, the writ petition
is liable to be dismissed.
18.Respondents No. 1 to 3 have, in their reply, specifically contended
that there exists no privity of contract between the petitioner and the
respondents. It is submitted that the works in question were allotted
to Respondent No. 4 (SICOP), and any engagement of the petitioner
for execution of such works was an independent arrangement
between Respondent No. 4 and the petitioner. The respondents were
neither parties to the said arrangement nor privy to the terms and
conditions governing the same. It is, accordingly, urged that no
contractual or legal liability can be fastened upon Respondents No.
1 to 3, and the writ petition, insofar as it seeks relief against them, is
liable to be dismissed
19.Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 submitted that it is not
disputed that an indent was received from the J&K Tourism
Development Corporation for construction of a 2BHK duplex at
Tourist Village, Cheshmashahi, pursuant whereto the cost estimate
submitted by SICOP was accepted and the work was allotted. It is
also not denied that the work stands executed and that an amount
WP(C) No. 733/2023 Page 6 of 17
of Rs. 34.80 lakhs has been released, while the balance amount
remains unpaid. The non-release of balance payment is attributed to
the indenting department.
20.Respondent No. 4, has reiterated that it acts only as a facilitating
agency between the indenting department and the SSI Units and has
no independent role in the matter of release of funds. It is submitted
that the respondent 4 has not received the full payment from the
indenting department and, therefore, cannot be held liable for
disbursement of the same to the petitioner.
21.It is, however, admitted by Respondent No. 4 that the works in
question were allotted through it, the petitioner was authorized to
execute the same, and the works were completed in terms of the
approved estimates and handed over to the indenting department on
20.06.2015. It is further admitted that out of the total amount, a sum
of Rs. 34.80 lakhs has been released, whereas the remaining amount
is still outstanding despite repeated requests made to the indenting
department.
22.The sum and substance of the stand taken by the respondents in both
the replies is that Respondent No. 4 is merely an intermediary, the
release of payment is dependent upon availability of funds with the
indenting department, and in the absence of such release, no
enforceable liability can be fastened upon the respondents.
23.It is submitted that despite repeated communications and requests
made by the respondent no.4 to the indenting Department for
release of the outstanding amount, the same has not been released.
24.It is further submitted that the respondent no.4 has consistently
apprised the indenting Department to release the outstanding
payments so that the same could be disbursed to the petitioner. It is
thus contended that the liability to release the payment rests solely
upon the indenting Department, and the respondent no.4 , being only
a facilitating agency, cannot be held responsible for the alleged non-
payment.
WP(C) No. 733/2023 Page 7 of 17
LEGAL ANALYSIS
25.Heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the
material on record.
26.At the threshold, it is to be noted that the foundational facts are
largely undisputed. The allotment of works to the petitioner through
the respondent no. 4, the execution of such works in accordance with
the approved estimates, and the handing over of the completed
works to the indenting Department stand admitted. The record
further reflects that the works were accepted without objection and
that part payments have been released. These admitted
circumstances clearly establish that the liability to pay for the works
executed has crystallized in favour of the petitioner.
27.The respondents 1 to 3 have contended that there exists no privity of
contract between the petitioner and the respondents and, therefore,
no liability can be fastened upon them. It is not in dispute that the
works in question were executed by the petitioner pursuant to
allotment through Respondent No. 4. The execution of work was
within the knowledge and with the approval of the respondents, and
the same has been duly accepted. The State, and its instrumentalities
in the law is constituted as a single entity, and the petitioner cannot
be compelled to suffer on account of lack of coordination or
financial management between its departments. The obligation to
ensure payment for works executed under valid allotment lies
squarely upon the respondents collectively. Once the State and its
instrumentalities have availed the benefit of the work so executed,
they cannot evade liability by raising a hyper-technical plea of lack
of privity.
28.The respondents 1 to 3 have also contended that the writ petition is
not maintainable on the ground that the dispute is contractual in
nature. It is well settled that where the claim arises out of admitted
and undisputed liability, and the State or its instrumentalities
withhold payment arbitrarily, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution can be invoked.
WP(C) No. 733/2023 Page 8 of 17
29.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled ‘ABL International Ltd.
and Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India
Ltd. and Others‘ (2004 (3) SCC 553 has observed that
“It is clear from the above observations of this Court in the
said case though a writ was not issued on the facts of that
case, this Court has held that on a given set of facts if a State
acts in an arbitrary manner even in a matter of contract, an
aggrieved party can approach the court by way of writ
under Article 226 of the Constitution and the court
depending on facts of the said case is empowered to grant the
relief.”
30.The contention of the respondent no . 4 that it merely acts as a
facilitator also does not absolve it of responsibility. The allotment of
work has admittedly been routed through it and the execution has
taken place under its authority. In such circumstances, the
respondent no. 4 cannot absolve from its role in ensuring that the
petitioner receives the payment due. The liability to pay, in the
present case, is thus clearly attributable to the respondents, who are
bound to act in a coordinated manner to discharge their obligations.
31.This Court cannot overlook the fact that the dues in question have
remained unpaid for an inordinate period of time. Such delay,
particularly in respect of admitted amounts, is not only a breach of
contractual obligations but also violative of the constitutional
mandate of fairness and reasonableness. Article 14 of
the Constitution of India enjoins upon the State to act in a fair,
reasonable and non-arbitrary manner in all its dealings. The
prolonged withholding of legitimate dues, without any justifiable
cause, is clearly arbitrary and cannot be sustained.
32. In [Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. T.N. Electricity Board
Reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 783 ,the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that
“39 ,A Bench of two learned Judges of this Court
in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Others v. State of
U.P. and Others7 observed that there exists “an
obvious difference” between contracts concerning
WP(C) No. 733/2023 Page 9 of 17
private parties to those which have State as a party.
The primary difference being that the State while
exercising its powers and discharging its functions
“acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public good
and in public interest”. The said factor singularly is
sufficient to bring into any transaction the minimal
requirements of public law, to which the State is a
party. The fact that a dispute falls into the contractual
realm does not (1991) 1 SCC 212 relieve the State of
its obligation to comply with the requirements
of Article.”
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.”
WP(C) No. 733/2023 Page 10 of 17
33.It goes without saying that the State is expected to function as a
model litigant. It cannot take advantage of its dominant position to
delay payment of admitted dues and thereafter seek to absolve itself
by raising technical pleas. If the State seeks to rely upon procedural
safeguards and limitation against a citizen, it must equally be held
accountable for its own delays. Each day’s delay in release of
payment, where liability is admitted, must be supported by a cogent
explanation. In the absence thereof, the delay must be held to be
unjustified.
34.The respondents have sought to justify the non-payment on the
ground of non-availability of funds. This Court finds the said
defense to be wholly untenable. It is not in dispute that the work
stands executed and has been duly accepted by the respondents.
Once the execution of work is admitted, the obligation to make
payment stands crystallized and cannot be deferred on the plea of
paucity of funds or want of administrative approval
35.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
WP(C) No. 733/2023 Page 11 of 17liability and due completion of work by the petitioner well in time the
payment has been unjustifiably withheld for a considerable period of
time.
36. The aforesaid principle squarely applies to the facts of the present
case. The respondents, having allotted the work and accepted its
execution, cannot be permitted to raise the plea of non-availability
of funds or internal administrative constraints to justify the
withholding of admitted dues.
37.This Court is of the considered opinion that once the execution of
the work is admitted and it is not in dispute that the respondents have
derived full benefit therefrom, it does not lie in their mouth to
contend, at a belated stage, that funds were not available or that
requisite administrative approvals were lacking. Such pleas, raised
post facto, are nothing but an attempt to evade a lawful liability and
are wholly untenable in law. It is trite and well settled through a
catena of judgments that the State and its instrumentalities cannot
shirk their financial obligations on the ground of paucity of funds,
particularly after having accepted and utilized the work executed for
their benefit. The obligation to make payment, in such
circumstances, attains a binding character and cannot be rendered
illusory by internal administrative deficiencies or financial
constraints. To countenance such a defence would not only amount
to permitting the State to unjustly enrich itself at the expense of the
petitioner but would also strike at the very foundation of fairness and
reasonableness that underpins State action under Article 14 of the
Constitution. The respondents, having enjoyed the fruits of the work
executed, are estopped from raising such pleas, and the liability to
honour the corresponding payment stands crystallized and
enforceable in law.
38.Further, the Division Bench of this Court in Union Territory of
J&K & Ors. vs. Mohammad Afzal Reshi (decided on
04.09.2024) has, in no uncertain terms, deprecated the practice of
withholding admitted dues on the pretext of paucity of funds and has
observed that such an excuse is “abominable and condemnable
WP(C) No. 733/2023 Page 12 of 17
in the strongest words”. For facility of reference same is reproduced
as under:
“19. Under the circumstances, this Court feels that an
order needs to be passed in this particular Letters
Patent Appeal which is exemplary and deterrent in
nature to prevent the Union Territory from filing such
frivolous cases and delaying the relief granted to the
litigants. In this particular case, the respondent herein
has been kept waiting for nine (9) years from the year
2015 for the payment of his just dues which are not
disputed. He was compelled to file writ petition only
because his admitted dues were not being paid by the
Union Territory for six long years on the grounds of
paucity of funds which excuse is abominable and
condemnable in the strongest words. The UT LPA No.
121/2023 The government is part of the Union
Government which is the repository of the lion’s share
of the wealth generated in this country in the first
instance and thereafter distributed to the states. It
shocks the conscience that we tout ourselves as the fifth
largest economy in the world, aspiring to be the third
largest soon, but do not have the funds to pay the
legitimate dues of the respondent amount to Rs. 20.97
Lacs, which denigrates and puts to doubt the lofty
claims of the economic prowess of the country”
39. Applying the aforesaid principles to the case in hand, it is evident
that the respondents have themselves admitted execution of the work
and partial release of payment, thereby leaving no dispute with
regard to the existence of liability. The only justification sought to
be projected is the alleged non-availability of funds. The petitioner
herein has also been constrained to approach this Court on account
of non-release of admitted dues, despite completion of work and
WP(C) No. 733/2023 Page 13 of 17
repeated requests, which situation is strikingly similar to the one
noticed in the aforesaid judgment.
40.In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the
stand taken by the respondents is not only legally untenable but also
contrary to the principles of fairness and reasonableness expected of
the State. The ratio laid down by the Division Bench clearly
mandates that admitted dues cannot be withheld on such specious
grounds, and any such attempt deserves to be strongly discouraged.
41.It is also well settled that where payment is wrongfully withheld, the
aggrieved party is entitled to compensation by way of interest. The
grant of interest in such cases is not merely discretionary but is
founded upon principles of equity, justice and good conscience. In
cases involving Micro and Small Enterprises, the statutory
framework further mandates timely payment and provides for
enhanced liability in case of delay. The object of such provisions is
to ensure that small units are not subjected to financial hardship on
account of delayed payments by State entities.
42.The aforesaid view stands reinforced by the earlier judgment of this
court in WP(C) No. 2513/2022 titled “M/s Tech Build & Associate
vs UT of J&K & Ors“, decided on 09.05.2025, wherein it has been
held as under:.
“The execution of works stands admitted by the
respondents, and the relevant details have also been
provided by them. The respondents cannot avoid
their liability to pay by taking refuge in the absence
of technical sanction and administrative approval,
especially when the responsibility for obtaining such
approvals rested solely with them. Despite this, the
respondents are denying the claim on the ground of
lack of administrative approval. This plea is not
available to them, as it was within their domain to
ensure the requisite approvals were obtained. They
cannot now raise this plea at this stage to defeat the
legitimate claim of the petitioner.
WP(C) No. 733/2023 Page 14 of 17
43.Further the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand in case titled as
“Ajmani Infrastructure and Projects Private Limited, through its
Director Mr. Kunal Ajmani Versus State of Jharkhand and
Others” reported as 2025 SCC OnLineJhar 3117 has observed as
under:
“Viewed thus, we hold that in the present case, the
respondents have failed to act in a fair manner.
Therefore, actions in not making payment to the
petitioner despite admission by their own officers, is
completely arbitrary. Against such arbitrary action,
the writ petition is maintainable as the State cannot
be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong.”
44.The consequences of delayed payments cannot be viewed lightly.
Contractors executing public works operate within limited financial
margins and rely upon timely payments for sustenance of their
business. Unjustified withholding of dues leads to financial strain,
erosion of creditworthiness, and, in many cases, irreparable business
loss. The State cannot be permitted to enjoy the benefit of completed
works while denying the corresponding financial entitlement to the
executing party.
45.This Court is of the considered view that the principle of fairness
demands that the State cannot be placed in a position where it suffers
no consequence for its delay, while the contractor bears the entire
burden. Accordingly, where delay in release of payment is
attributable to the State and is not supported by any legal or
contractual justification, the State must be held liable to pay interest
for the delayed period.
46.This Court also deems it necessary to emphasize the need for
administrative accountability. Recurrent instances of delayed
payments point towards systemic deficiencies in financial planning
and governance. It is incumbent upon the authorities to ensure that
funds are duly earmarked prior to issuance of work orders. Once the
WP(C) No. 733/2023 Page 15 of 17
work is completed and accepted, payment ought to be released
without delay. Any lapse in this regard must invite appropriate
consequences.
47.In appropriate cases, where delay is attributable to negligence or
inaction of responsible officials, it would be open to the competent
authority to fix accountability and take necessary action in
accordance with law. The burden of interest liability arising out of
such delay should not invariably fall upon the public exchequer, but
may be recovered from the erring officials after due process.
48.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Dr. Poornima
Advani & Anr. Versus Government of NCT & Anr reported as
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 254 has observed as under:
“17. Thus, when a person is deprived of the use of his money to
which he is legitimately entitled, he has a right to be compensated
for the deprivation which may be called interest or
compensation. Interest is paid for the deprivation of the use of
money in general terms 11 which has returned or compensation
for the use or retention by a person of a sum of money belonging
to other.”
49.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is satisfied that the
petitioner has established a clear legal right to receive the admitted
dues. The respondents, having accepted the work and partially
discharged their liability, cannot be permitted to withhold the
balance amount without any lawful justification. The defence sought
to be raised by the respondents does not withstand judicial scrutiny.
The grant of interest in such cases is founded upon principles of
equity, justice and good conscience, and in cases involving Micro
and Small Enterprises, the statutory framework further mandates
timely payment along with enhanced liability in case of delay.
50.The consequences of delayed payments are significant, particularly
for small-scale units, which operate within limited financial
capacity. Unjustified withholding of dues results in financial
WP(C) No. 733/2023 Page 16 of 17
hardship and adversely impacts business viability. The State cannot
be permitted to derive benefit from completed works while denying
the corresponding financial entitlement to the executing party.
51.This Court also deems it appropriate to emphasize the need for
administrative accountability. Authorities must ensure availability
of funds prior to allotment of works. Failure in this regard cannot be
used as a defense to defeat legitimate claims.
CONCLUSION;
52.In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the
petitioner has established a clear, enforceable and legally protected
right to receive the admitted dues arising out of works duly executed
and accepted by the respondents. The liability, having once
crystallized, cannot be permitted to be diluted or defeated by pleas
which are extraneous to law.
53.Despite the catena of judgments and a well settled position of law,
the respondents continue to withhold such admitted dues on grounds
which are wholly untenable in law, such as administrative delays,
pendency of approvals, or alleged paucity of funds. Such pleas, in
the considered view of this Court, are nothing but attempts to shift
the burden of internal inefficiencies onto the shoulders of the
executing parties, which is impermissible.
54.The State, being a welfare entity, is expected to act fairly, reasonably
and in a responsible manner in all its dealings. The practice of
compelling citizens to seek judicial intervention for enforcement of
admitted claims cannot be approved and deserves to be deprecated.
55.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.
56.In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate not
only to grant relief to the petitioner, but also to reiterate the position
already enunciated by this Court in M/s Saint Soldier Engineers &
WP(C) No. 733/2023 Page 17 of 17
Contractors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union Territory of J&K & Ors., that
the State is under an obligation to ensure timely release of admitted
and undisputed dues and cannot compel parties to seek judicial
redress for enforcement of such claims and emphasized the necessity
of putting in place an effective and time-bound mechanism for
disbursement of admitted liabilities. It is, therefore, expected that the
respondents shall adhere to and ensure strict compliance with the
directions issued therein.
57.In the light of what has been discussed hereinabove and also in view
of the settled position of law laid down by this Court, the instant writ
petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the
case of the petitioner for the release of the admitted liability in
favour of the petitioner to the tune of ₹47.47 lakhs 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. It is made
clear, failing such compliance within the stipulated period, the
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. The writ petition is disposed of, along with all
connected application.
(Wasim Sadiq Nargal)
Judge
Srinagar:
“MUBASHIR”
Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No
Whether approved for reporting : Yes/No
