Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 24 March, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2026:UHC:2057
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.503 of 2026
24th March, 2026
Saksham Associates through Its
Sole Proprietor Anand Prakash Juyal .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. D.K. Joshi,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Suyash Pant, learned S.C. for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to make payment of ₹19,76,120/- to the petitioner due in connection of the construction of an Inspection House, Public Works Department at Bajiro Dhumakot, Pauri- Garhwal as per agreement dated 29.10.2011.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the aforesaid amount is admitted due to the petitioner, therefore, this Court directed the State counsel vide order dated 27.02.2026 to seek instructions in the matter that as to whether the amount claimed by the petitioner is admitted dues of the petitioner pursuant to work done by him under the contract or not.
3. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions, which is placed on record, submits that the amount claimed by the petitioner is not an admitted one rather the petitioner has completed the work after eight months 12 days of the period in which it has to be completed by the 1 2026:UHC:2057 petitioner and in such a scenario the petitioner has to move an application for extension of time which has yet not been moved by the petitioner and if such an application is moved by the petitioner the amount due to the petitioner would be released in his favour immediately after deciding the said application and making the deduction, if any.
4. In such view of the matter the writ petition is finally disposed of and it is provided that the petitioner shall make an application to respondent no.2-Executive Engineer for extension of time for completion of the contract and if such an application is moved by the petitioner to respondent no.2-Executive Engineer, he shall pass an order on the said application, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of that application and release the amount in favour of the petitioner, if any, found due.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 24.03.2026 SK 2