Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sole Proprietor vs Command on 24 July, 2026
Sr. No. 1692026:JKLHC-JMU:2261
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 2276/2026
Date of pronouncement:24.07.2026
Uploaded on: 27.07.2026
1. M/s Chandigarh Poultry Centre,
Plot No. 72A, Industrial Area
Phase-I, Panchkula through its
Sole Proprietor Mr. Mulkh Raj
2. Mulkh Raj, Aged 84 years,
S/o Lt Sh. Manak Chand,
R/o Plot No. 72A, Industrial Area
Phase-I, Panchkula,
Sole Proprietor
.... Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
M/s Chandigarh Poultry Centre
Through:- Mr. D C Raina, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, Advocate
V/s
1. Union of India, through Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Government of India,
South Block, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Director General of Supplies and
Transport
QuartermasterGeneral's
BranchIntegrated Headquarters of
MoD (Army)
DHQ PO, New Delhi- 110105
3. GOC-IN-C, Headquarters,
Northern Command,
Udhampur
4. MG ASC, HQ Northern
Command, Udhampur
.....Respondent(s)
5. Commandant SD ASC Leh
6. 5118 COY ASC Comp
C/o 56 APO
Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with
Mr. Karan Sharma, CGSC
Page 1 of 4
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2261
ORDER
01. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners were awarded a contract by the respondents for the supply
of Meat Dressed Frozen (MDF) and Chicken (Broiler) Dressed
Frozen (BDF) at Field Supply Depot ASC Leh (Cluster) for the
period from 16.05.2026 to 15.11.2026, pursuant to the e-NIT dated
22.12.2025.
02. It is submitted that the petitioners have duly and satisfactorily
discharged their contractual obligations. However, by virtue of the
impugned recovery notices dated 02.07.2026 and07.07.2026, the
respondents have sought to recover amounts of ₹4,08,533/-
and₹1,68,300/-, respectively, from the petitioners.
03. Aggrieved by the aforesaid recovery notices, the petitioners
immediately invoked Clause 10 of the Contract Agreement by
preferring an appeal before the competent authority on 09.07.2026,
seeking appropriate redressal and clarification.
04. Learned counsel submits that although the impugned recoveries are
appealable under Clause 10 of the Contract Agreement, the
respondents, despite repeated requests made by the petitioners, have
failed to disclose the particulars of the competent appellate authority.
Instead, the respondents are proceeding to effect the recoveries,
which, if permitted, would render the statutory contractual remedy of
appeal illusory and infructuous.
05. Per contra, learned DSGI submitted that the petitioners cannot
question the recoveries merely because they have raised a contractual
dispute. According to him, the settled position of law permits
WP (C) No.2276/2026 Page 2 of 4
contractual recoveries or adjustments notwithstanding the pendency
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2261
of a dispute between the contracting parties. It is further contended
that the writ petition is misconceived, as the petitioners have an
efficacious alternative remedy of appeal. However, learned DSGI
fairly conceded that the present petition may be disposed of by
directing the competent authority to consider and decide the
petitioners’ appeal expeditiously.
06. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the
material on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that the
impugned recovery notices are appealable before the competent
authority. The petitioners claim to have already approached the
respondents requesting them to intimate the name, designation, office
address, e-mail ID, mobile number, and other particulars of the
Immediate Superior Commander, who is the designated appellate
authority, so as to enable them to effectively pursue the appeal. Once
such a request has been made, the respondents are under an
obligation to facilitate the exercise of the petitioners’ appellate
remedy. They cannot frustrate the petitioners’ right to a meaningful
appeal by withholding the particulars of the appellate authority.
Consequently, until the appeal is duly considered and decided, the
respondents ought not to insist upon effecting the recoveries on the
premise that the petitioners failed to meet the demand quota,
compelling the respondents to resort to local purchases at the
petitioners’ risk and cost.
07. Since the petitioners have already invoked the contractual appellate
mechanism, this Court is of the considered opinion that its
WP (C) No.2276/2026 Page 3 of 4
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is not warranted at
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2261
this stage. The rights and liabilities of the parties shall ultimately be
governed by the decision rendered by the appellate authority, against
which the petitioners shall be at liberty to avail such remedies as may
be permissible in law. The writ petition is, therefore, premature.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an appropriate
direction to the respondents to facilitate and expedite the appellate
process would sufficiently protect the petitioners’ interests.
08. In view of the foregoing, the writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to respondent No. 2 to communicate to the petitioners,
within one week, the name, designation, office address, e-mail ID
and other relevant particulars of the Immediate Superior
Commander, who is the competent appellate authority under the
Contract Agreement, thereby enabling the petitioners to effectively
pursue their appeal in accordance with law. The appellate authority
shall ensure that their appeal is dealt with expeditiously.
(Sanjay Parihar)
Judge
JAMMU
24.07.2026
Manik
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: No
WP (C) No.2276/2026 Page 4 of 4
