Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Rattan Paul Padha vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir on 30 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No. WP(C) No. 1489/2021
Reserved on: 10.03.2026
Pronounced on: 30.03.2026
Uploaded on: 01.04.2026
Whether the operative part of
or full judgment is pronounced: Full
Rattan Paul Padha ..... Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
S/o Sh. Balwant Raj
R/o Dharamsal Kalakote, District Rajouri
Through :- Mr. Rajesh Bhushan, Advocate.
Vs
1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir .....Respondent(s)
Through Principal Secretary, Housing
and Urban Development Department,
Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
2. Director Urban Local Bodies, Near
Jodhamal School, Lane No. 4 Adarsh
Vihar, Deeli, Jammu.
3. Executive Engineer, Local Bodies
Division-I Gole Market, Gandhi Nagar,
Jammu.
Through :- Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. Through the medium of the instant petition, the petitioner has sought the
following reliefs:-
“Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release an
amount of Rs. 50,96,950/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh Ninety Six
Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty), which is an admitted liability
for carrying out the work of construction of alternate road forWP(C) No. 1489/2021 Page 1 of 12
decongestion of main bazaar traffic by way of construction of
R-wall at RD 160 to 200 and RD 425-625 (Total aggregate
length 260 Mtr.) Parapets 8 Nos 0.60 x 0.60 Mtr culverts for
drainage and side drains including allied work at
Sunderbani.”
2. Respondent No. 2, vide Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) No. 11-LBJ-1 of
2016-17 dated 02.11.2016, invited applications for carrying out the work
namely construction of an alternate road for decongestion of main bazaar
traffic by way of construction of R-wall at RD 160 to 200 and RD 425-
625 (Total aggregate length 260 Mtr), parapets, 8 Nos 0.60 x 0.60 Mtr
culverts for drainage and side drains including allied work at Sunderbani.
The total value of the work was Rs. 64.44 Lacs.
3. The petitioner, being eligible to apply for the said NIT, applied for the
same. A copy of the certificate of registration of petitioner as an A-Class
contractor issued in Form-II and renewed till date has been enclosed with
the petition.
4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he has completed the work
which was allocated to him vide allotment letter dated 07.12.2016 in
conformity with the terms and conditions mentioned in the said
communication and other conditions communicated to the petitioner from
time to time.
5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he has incurred huge amount of
Rs. 63,00,700 (Rupees Sixty-three lacs seven hundred) on completion of
the aforesaid work allotted to him, which is evident from a bare perusal of
communication dated 07.12.2016. The details of the expenditure incurred
by the petitioner have also been enclosed along with the instant petition.
WP(C) No. 1489/2021 Page 2 of 12
6. It is worth mentioning that the work was started way back on 23.12.2016
and was completed by the petitioner in terms of the conditions specified
in the communication dated 07.12.2016 to the complete satisfaction of the
respondent-authorities.
7. The petitioner being the L-1 and having participated in the e-NIT, was granted
allotment in his favour by virtue of allotment order dated 07.12.2016. Since the
aforesaid amount, despite the admitted liability, was not released by the
respondents, the petitioner made repeated requests to them. In response thereof,
respondent No. 3, vide communication dated 17.07.2018, addressed to
respondent No. 2, requesting him to release an amount of Rs. 62.83 lacs, so that
the pending liability of the petitioner could be cleared. The petitioner, in order
to fortify his claim, has placed the aforesaid communication on record.
8. It has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that
despite the amount being admitted, the respondents have not released the
same in his favour till date and have only released a part payment to the
tune of Rs. 13.27 lacs out of the admitted liability to the tune of Rs. 62.83
lacs.
9. It has also been argued that after completion of the work assigned to the
petitioner, requisite bills were also submitted to the respondents for
release of the balance amount to the tune of Rs. 50,96,898/-, which
amount, despite the admitted liability is still pending with the
respondents. The petitioner was also constrained to issue a legal notice
dated 27.01.2021 in this regard, but despite receipt of the same, the
needful has not been done even though the work had been completed in
conformity with the allotment letter dated 07.12.2016.
WP(C) No. 1489/2021 Page 3 of 12
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner with a view to advance his case has
drawn the attention of the Court to the communication dated 18.02.2020
issued by the Executive Engineer, Urban Local Bodies, Division Jammu,
a perusal whereof reveals that the work executed by the petitioner has
been duly verified by the concerned Executive Engineer and that a
completion certificate has also been issued in this regard. Thus, according
to the learned counsel, there is no impediment which comes in way of the
respondents to release the aforesaid amount in favour of the petitioner,
particularly when part payment has already been released out of the work
allotted to him.
11. Per contra, the reply stands filed on behalf of the respondents. The
respondents have taken a preliminary objection that the claim projected
by the petitioner can only be adjudicated by a Civil Court after leaving
evidence, and therefore the petitioner cannot maintain the instant petition
and the same deserves to be dismissed.
12. A specific stand has also been taken by the respondents that though the
allotment order dated 07.12.2016 was issued in favour of the petitioner,
the same was subject to the condition that the contractor/petitioner was
required to execute an agreement with the official respondents and would
remain personally responsible not to exceed the work beyond the allotted
amount and also for any contravention of any specifications of the
material used.
13. The respondents have further taken a specific stand that although the
work in question was taken up by the petitioner on the directions of the
WP(C) No. 1489/2021 Page 4 of 12
Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri, the same was undertaken without the
approval of the Administrative Department.
14. The respondents, while filing the reply affidavit, have also admitted that
the claim raised by the petitioner pertains to the work executed on a
revised DPR without approval of the competent authority and since there
was a deviation from the original contract, payment cannot be released to
the contractor if the contractor has not executed the work strictly in terms
of the e-NIT and the allotment order, as per the applicable rules.
15. It has also been pleaded that since the contractor was under a legal
obligation to execute the work strictly as per the terms and conditions of
the e-NIT and the allotment order, any deviation therefrom and excess
payment, if any, would disentitle him from claiming the payment for the
said work. Accordingly, a prayer has been made that the writ petition
deserves dismissal. In addition, the Finance Department has already
issued guidelines/modalities vide circular dated 26.04.2021 for strict
adherence by all departments regarding release of past liabilities in
respect of works and in case of any violation, action can be initiated
against the concerned officers.
16. Lastly, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that
this Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain the instant writ petition
in view of the efficacious remedy available to the petitioner to file a
recovery suit.
Legal Analysis:
17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal
of the record, this Court finds that the liability of the respondents towards
WP(C) No. 1489/2021 Page 5 of 12
the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 50,96,950/- is not in dispute. Once
liability is admitted and the State continues to enjoy the fruits of the work
executed by the petitioner, it cannot be permitted to turn around and deny
payment without any justifiable reason. Besides, the state cannot retain
payment when part payment has already been done. The liability in the
present case is in the nature of a recurring liability. The work has been
executed, utilized and the benefits continue to accrue to the respondents.
In such cases, the cause of action is a continuing one and every day of
non-payment constitutes a fresh infraction of the petitioner’s rights. The
State and its instrumentalities are expected to act fairly and reasonably,
particularly, in matters relating to payment of legitimate dues of
contractors, who have executed public works.
18. Despite the petitioner having been duly allotted the contract as the L-1 bidder
pursuant to the e-NIT, the respondents failed to release the outstanding
amount. The record further reveals that the petitioner made repeated
representations seeking disbursement of the pending dues. Significantly,
these requests were not only persistent but were also acknowledged by the
respondent authorities themselves. In this regard, Respondent No. 3, vide
communication dated 17.07.2018 addressed to Respondent No. 2, requesting
the release of an amount of Rs.62.83 lakhs for the purpose of clearing the
petitioner’s pending liability. However, despite such acknowledgment at the
departmental level, no consequential action was undertaken by the
respondents to discharge the admitted liability. The inaction on part of the
respondents to release the outstanding liability in light of the admitted stand,
therefore, reflects arbitrariness and administrative apathy on part of the
WP(C) No. 1489/2021 Page 6 of 12
respondents. The relevant aforesaid communication for reference is
reproduced hereunder:
“The above noted work was allotted by the then Director
Urban Local Bodies, Jammu vide allotment No.
DULBJ/2016/10399-10403 dated: 7.12.2016 under UIDSSMT.
The contractor has now submitted claim as 2nd C.C for an
amount of Rs. 62.83 lacs. You are as such requested to release
an amount of Rs. 62.83 lacs so that the pending liability of the
contractor can be cleared.”
19. This Court in the similar facts and circumstances has already dealt with a
similar issue in case titled, “M/s Saint Soldier Engineer and Contractor
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.T. of J&K and Others“, WP(C) No. 2472/2022, decided
on 26.09.2025, wherein it has been held that once, the liability of the
Government towards a contractor stands admitted, the respondents cannot
indefinitely withhold the payment on the ground of administrative or
procedural constraints and the admitted dues are required to be released
within a reasonable time. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment
squarely applies to the facts of the present case. It was held as under:
“17. What emerges from the record is that the liability is
admitted by the respondents themselves. Once liability is
admitted, the only question that remains is with respect
to delay in release of payment. Such delay, in the
opinion of this Court, requires to be enquired into so
that responsibility can be fixed upon the officers
concerned. If contractors are compelled to knock at the
doors of the Court day in and day out for release of
legitimate dues, the fault lies not with the petitioner but
with the respondents.
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
WP(C) No. 1489/2021 Page 7 of 12
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.”
20. Therefore, this Court cannot remain a passive onlooker where admitted
dues are unjustifiably withheld under the guise of administrative delays or
financial constraints. On numerous occasions, this court has been
compelled to intervene in matters where contractors, having fulfilled their
contractual obligations are denied timely release of their dues by
government departments. The State and its instrumentalities, despite
enjoying the benefit of completed works, unjustifiably withhold payment
for years together, thereby compelling the contractors to litigate. Such
unnecessary litigation clogs the docket of constitutional courts, drains
public resources and erodes the confidence of citizens in the fairness of
State action. This systemic malaise demands judicial correction and
policy direction.
21. Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality before the law
and equal protection of the laws. Over time, its jurisprudence has evolved
well beyond the notion of mere formal equality to embody a substantive
guarantee against arbitrariness. It is now firmly settled that every State
action, whether legislative, executive or arising out of contractual
dealings must conform to the standards of fairness, reasonableness and
non-arbitrariness.
22. The Government, while entering into contracts or dealing with contractors
does not divest itself of its constitutional obligations. Unlike a private
party, the State is expected to act as a model litigant, adhering to
WP(C) No. 1489/2021 Page 8 of 12
standards of fairness and reasonableness. Once the liability stands
admitted, particularly where the work has been duly executed, measured
and certified, any unjustified withholding of payment constitutes arbitrary
State action and is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
23. This Court is of the considered view that such conduct on part of the
Government is wholly arbitrary and unfair. The State, as a model litigant
is expected to act fairly and reasonably. Where the delay in releasing
payments is attributable to the State and there is no legal impediment or
contractual dispute, the Government must explain the cause of such delay.
Each day’s delay in the release of payment must be justified. In the
absence of any cogent explanation, the Government would be liable to
compensate the petitioner by way of interest for the period of delay.
Additionally, it may also be held accountable for the financial hardship
and mental distress occasioned to the petitioner as a result of such
unjustified conduct. The doctrine of fairness does not countenance a
situation where the State continues to enjoy the benefits of the executed
work while simultaneously denying the contractor his legitimate dues.
The State, therefore, cannot have a ‘win-win’ situation.
24. The legal position regarding the payment of dues for contractual work
executed is well-settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several
authoritative pronouncements. These judgments collectively underscore
the imperative that “contractual payments must not be unduly delayed or
withheld by the State without valid reasons.”
WP(C) No. 1489/2021 Page 9 of 12
25. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramakrishna Construction
Co. v. Union of India, (2010) 3 SCC 579, it is a settled proposition that
once work has been executed and the liability is admitted, the State
cannot arbitrarily withhold payment.
26. Similarly, in Surya Constructions v. State of U.P., (1986) 3 SCC 247,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “courts can exercise writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in cases where admitted
contractual dues are withheld without justification.”
27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has consistently held that the State,
notwithstanding its sovereign character, is equally bound by its
contractual obligations. It cannot claim immunity where its actions are
arbitrary, unfair, or mala fide in the discharge of such obligations. In such
circumstances, the State is amenable to judicial scrutiny and can be held
accountable through appropriate intervention by the courts. In particular,
the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution plays a crucial
role in enforcing these obligations, especially in cases where the conduct
of the State discloses manifest arbitrariness or an unjustified withholding
of legitimate dues.
28. The objection raised by the respondents that the petitioner ought to have
first approached the civil court for redressal of his grievances is also
without merit. The jurisdiction of a civil court is ordinarily invoked where
there exists a disputed question of fact regarding the rights and liabilities
of the parties arising out of a contract. In the present case, however, the
respondents themselves have acknowledged the execution of the work as
WP(C) No. 1489/2021 Page 10 of 12
well as the liability arising therefrom and the amount payable to the
petitioner is not shown to be the subject matter of any genuine dispute. In
such circumstances, relegating the petitioner to a civil suit would serve no
useful purpose, as the petitioner would merely be compelled to institute
prolonged litigation for recovery of an amount which the respondents
themselves do not dispute. Where the liability of the State stands admitted
and the grievance of the petitioner pertains only to the withholding of
payment, the matter assumes the character of arbitrary State action,
thereby justifying the invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this Court
rather than relegating the petitioner to the ordinary remedy of a civil suit.
29. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is
allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the
petitioner for the release of the balance admitted amount of Rs.
50,96,950/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty
only) for the work executed, namely, construction of an alternate road for
decongestion of main bazaar traffic by way of construction of R-wall at
RD 160 to 200 and RD 425-625 (aggregate length 260 meters), parapets
(08 Nos.), 0.60 × 0.60 meter culverts for drainage and side drains
including allied works at Sunderbani, in case, if there is no legal
impediment.
30. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within a period of six weeks
from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the
respondent No.3.
WP(C) No. 1489/2021 Page 11 of 12
31. It is made clear that in case, the amount is not released within the
stipulated period, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date the amount became due till its realization.
32. Thus, in light of what has been discussed hereinabove coupled with
settled legal position, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is
disposed of in the manner indicated above alongwith all connected
applications.
(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)
JUDGE
JAMMU
30.03.2026
Mihul
Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
WP(C) No. 1489/2021 Page 12 of 12
