Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
M/S Magray Construction Company vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir on 27 April, 2026
Serial No. 181
Supplementary Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU& KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP (C) No. 892/2026
CM No. 2337/2026
M/S Magray Construction Company
Through its proprietor
Maqsood Ahmad, Age: 44 Years
S/O Ghulam Mohammad
R/O Maghron Kollan, Tehsil Haveli,
District Poonch.
... Petitioner(s)
Through: -
Mr G. A. Lone, Senior Advocate with
Mr Abid Hamid Pandit, Advocate.
V/s
1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
Through Commissioner/ Secretary to Government,
Jal Shakti (PHE) Department, Civil Secretariat,
Srinagar/ Jammu, Pin Code-190009.
2. Chief Engineer, Jal Shakti (PHE) Department,
Rajbagh, Srinagar, Pin Code-190008.
3. Superintending Engineer, Jal Shakti (PHE),
Hydraulic Circle Budgam, Pin Code-191111.
4. Executive Engineer, Jal Shakti (PHE),
Budgam, Pin Code-191111.
5. Assistant Executive Engineer, Jal Shakti (PHE),
Khansahib, District Budgam, Pin Code-191111.
6. Junior Engineer, Jal Shakti (PHE), Khansahib,
District Budgam, Pin Code-191111.
... Respondent(s)
Through: –
Mr Jehangir Ahmad Dar, Government Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE.
(ORDER)
27.04.2026
01. The Petitioner, through the medium of this Petition invoking
Writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, has
assailed Notice No. PHE/Camp/237-39 dated 10th of April, 2026, whereby
the Respondent No.4 has directed the Petitioner to resume and expedite the
allotted work for execution of Water Supply Scheme Khansahib Town
under AMRUT 2.0, allotted to it vide No. SHE/Hyd/DB/3407-09 dated 3rd
of February, 2025 for an approved cost of Rs. 3,99,12,310.617 with the
stipulated time of completion of the said work as 200 days.
02. The Petitioner, in this Petition, pleads that, after allotment of
the aforesaid work, it mobilized resources, men and machinery to the site,
dumped necessary material and immediately commenced the construction
of one lakh gallon water tank on time within seven days as per the allotment
Order, however, it could not continue the work due to the departmental
fault for want of demarcation/ Nishandehi for start of the said work after the
lapse of two months, following the transfer of the then Executive Engineer
and Assistant Executive Engineer, besides, due to bad weather, the
Petitioner otherwise could not resume the work; that the Respondents
issued notice to the Petitioner asking it to resume the work immediately
and, in response to the said notice, the Petitioner forwarded its detailed
reply and requested the Respondent No.3 to visit the site, so as to access the
ground condition, submitting that approximately 30% of the work allotted
was completed initially and that the concerned Junior Engineer abruptly
halted the work and closed the site without any justifiable reasons, as such,
the Petitioner complained against him on 13th of October, 2025,
highlighting that the Junior Engineer was showing no interest in the work,
making illegal interference and had failed to hand over the complete site to
the Petitioner, which resulted in unnecessary delay due to continuous failure
of the Respondent-Department to provide an encumbrance-free site.
03. It is also pleaded by the Petitioner that the local residents had
created several disputes and refused to allow the pipeline to pass through
their lands and the Respondents themselves have officially admitted to
these local obstructions, inasmuch as, the Respondent No.5 communicated
to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned with regard to hurdles created
by one Ab. Rashid Pathan, vide letter dated 28th of November, 2025; by
Nazir Ahmad Pathan, vide letter dated 12th of December, 2025; and by one
Gh. Hassan Kaze, vide letter dated 20th of December, 2025.
04. The Petitioner further contends that it had already dumped two
trucks of Ductile Iron (DI) pipes at the site, costing approximately Rs. 40.00
lacs and that, despite the Department’s own written admissions regarding
local disruptions, the Respondents have, now, issued an arbitrary notice to
the Petitioner on 9th of March, 2026, accusing the Petitioner to have
abandoned the work site. Thereafter, the Petitioner was finally issued the
notice dated 10th of April, 2026, impugned herein, which, as per the
Petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary and perverse.
05. Mr G. A. Lone, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the
Petitioner, assisted by Mr Abid Hamid Pandit, Advocate, submits that the
impugned notice dated 10th of April, 2026 is highly arbitrary, capricious and
suffers from total non-application of mind, in that, the Respondent No.4 has
completely ignored the official communications issued by the Respondent
No.5 to the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate with regard to the local
disruptions; that it is highly disproportionate and irrational to command the
Petitioner to complete the work within three days, while the Petitioner’s
machinery was idle precisely because local miscreants had been physically
disturbing the pipeline alignment to which the Department was turning a
blind eye and that the Petitioner required magisterial and police protection
for carrying out the work.
06. It has been finally prayed that the impugned notice be quashed
and the Respondents be directed to immediately resolve the local/ land
disputes, secure the work site and hand over a complete encumbrance-free
site to the Petitioner, so that the remaining work of the Water Supply
Scheme Khansahib Town under AMRUT 2.0 can be seamlessly executed.
07. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner.
08. Notice in the main Petition as well as in the connected CM.
09. Mr Jehangir Ahmad Dar, the learned Government Advocate,
enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents. He has
argued that the Petitioner has been issued the impugned notice for resuming
the work within three days and not for completion of the work within three
days, as has been projected by the Petitioner in this Petition. He has further
submitted that, despite availability of funds and the public interest involved
in the project, the Petitioner-Contractor has delayed the execution of the
work and, even now, when a final notice has been issued to resume the
work, the Petitioner has come up with this Petition, so as to further delay
the project. He, thus, prayed that the Petition be dismissed in limine.
10. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for
the parties and on a consensus arrived at between them, the matter is taken
up for final determination.
11. The Petitioner, on 3rd of February, 2025, was allotted the work
of laying and fitting of 200 MM Dia Pipes for Water Supply Scheme,
Khansahib Town under AMRUT 2.0 by the Respondent-Department. The
Petitioner has not succeeded to keep the timeline for completion of the
work. The Petitioner, however, has placed on record three communications,
to which the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has also drawn the
attention of the Court, viz. communications dated 28th of November, 2025,
12th of December, 2025 and 20th of December, 2025 issued by the Assistant
Executive Engineer, Jal Shakti (PHE), Sub Division Khansahib, Budgam-
Respondent No.5 to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khansahib with regard
to obstructions created by three persons, namely, Ab. Rashid Pathan, Nazir
Ahmad Pathan and Gh. Hassan Kaze, respectively.
12. It appears from the perusal of the pleadings available on record
that the delay of the execution of the work cannot be attributed solely to the
Petitioner, in that, the Respondents themselves have admitted that there was
public disruption to the execution of the work. The Petitioner has now, vide
the impugned notice, been asked to immediately resume and expedite the
work within three days positively by mobilizing adequate manpower and
machinery to ensure procurement of all pending material and complete the
work within the stipulated period of time without any further delay. This
notice, however, does not specify, as has been projected in the instant
Petition, that the work has to be completed within three days. Therefore, the
apprehension of the Petitioner with regard to initiating of imposition of
penalties, rescinding of contract and risk and cost execution, as cautioned
by the impugned notice, has to operate if the Petitioner does not resume the
work within three days from the date of issuance of the notice. Since, the
Petitioner has claimed that he has already invested a huge amount towards
the execution of the Water Supply Scheme and that the delay was due to the
fact that the Respondents had failed to provide him encumbrance free site
for laying the pipeline in the Khansahib Town, the delay cannot be solely
attributed to the Petitioner.
13. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
coupled with the pleadings made by the Petitioner and the submissions
urged on both the sides, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this Petition,
particularly in the face of the impugned notice dated 10 th of April, 2026
cautioning the Petitioner to resume and expedite the work. By the impugned
notice, the Respondents have not fixed any timeline for the completion of
the work, as such, the apprehension of the Petitioner that he was to be
imposed penalty or his contract may be rescinded, along with the risk and
cost execution, seems to be misplaced at this stage and the Petitioner has
come to the Court without having a substantive cause of action. Rather, it
will be in the interests of justice that the Petitioner resumes the work at site
immediately and expedites the execution thereof, so as to complete the
allotted work without causing any undue delay having regard to the nature
of the allotted work and the public interest involved therein for supply of
potable water to the residents of the area. The Respondents are also directed
to remove all the disruptions at the site in the context of the execution of
work, for its early completion.
14. With the aforesaid observations, the present Petition is, thus,
disposed of, along with the connected CM.
(M. A. CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
April 27th, 2026
“TAHIR”
Tahir Manzoor Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document