Mohammad Haroon & Ors vs Union Territory Of Jk & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1601 j&K/2

                                                                           S. No. 102
                                                                           Regular Cause List
                      IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                                         AT SRINAGAR

                                           WP (C) No. 853/2021

               Mohammad Haroon & Ors.                                          ...Petitioner(s)

               Through: Mr Qazi Ayaz, Adv.

                                                     Vs.

               Union Territory of JK & Ors.                                   ...Respondent(s)

               Through: Mr. Irfan Andleeb, Dy. AG

               CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

                                                ORDER

13.12.2021

1. The petitioners claim that they are contractors by profession and were allotted different works by the departments of R&B and Public Health Engineering (PHE) as also by the Rural Development Department in Block Teetwal Karnah through the Executive Engineer Special Sub- Division Tangdhar. The petitioners claim that they have executed all their works to the satisfaction of the respondents and handed over the same to the respondents after due verification. It is their grievance that they have submitted their bills for payment which on verification by the concerned Executive Engineer have been passed, but they have not been released payment on the ground that the funds from the concerned quarters are awaited. It is thus prayed by the petitioners that a writ of Mandamus be issued to the respondents to release their outstanding bills amounting to Rs. 76,25,889/- approximately along-with interest.

2. The respondent No. 5, the Executive Engineer Special Sub Division Tangdhar, Karnah has filed reply affidavit. In the reply affidavit, stand taken by the Executive Engineer concerned is that the works executed by the petitioners-contractors were approved under the State Sector or Model Village BADP. The work done liabilities as well as general abstract of work done liabilities have been consolidated. It is submitted that the liabilities under the State Sector have been forwarded to the MOHAMMAD ALTAF NIMA 2021.12.14 12:33 WP I attest to the (C) and

integrity of this document higher authorities vide communication No. 1138-39 dated 28th April 2018, 1535-36 dated 13.08.2018 and 5469 dated 16.03.2021 for release of requisite funds so that the liabilities of the contractors are cleared. It is submitted that so far as the work done liabilities of the petitioners under the Model Village BADP are concerned, the same stand communicated to the District Development Commissioner, Kupwara vide Letter No. BADP/MV/1513 dated 13.08.2018 and 3812-14 dated 19.03.2020 for release of funds.

3. It is further contended that a team headed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate Karnah which was constituted by the District Development Commissioner, Kupwara, has conducted the verification of all the works and has submitted its report confirming therein that the works have been executed and that there is outstanding liability on account of works executed by the contractors. In a nutshell, the Executive Engineer, Special Sub Division Tangdhar has admitted the execution of works by the petitioners as also the payment due to the petitioners on account of such execution of works. There is another reply affidavit filed by the same persons taking a similar stand.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, I am of the opinion that having regard to the stand taken by the respondents in the reply affidavit, there remains nothing in this petition to be adjudicated. The works claimed to have been executed by the petitioners have been admitted by the respondents to have been done to their satisfaction. The verification team constituted by the District Development Commissioner has also confirmed the execution of works on spot.

5. If that be the position, there could be no reason or justification to deny the payment of admitted amount to the petitioners. The stand of the respondents that the matter has been taken up with the District Development Commissioner Kupwara and other higher authorities for release of funds and that the amount payable to the petitioners shall be released once the funds are released, cannot be a reasonable excuse to deny the admitted payment to the petitioners. This court taking note of such situation prevalent in almost all the departments of the Union

MOHAMMAD ALTAF NIMA 2021.12.14 12:33 WP I attest to the (C) and

integrity of this document Territory vide judgment dated 23rd September 2021 passed in OWP No. 1641/2016 issued the following directions:-

i) That the Chief Secretary of the Union Territory shall examine this issue after getting inputs from all the departments and the agencies of the Government which get their works executed through contractors and deny them their due payments citing paucity of funds as impediment. He shall ensure that these matters are settled by the government at its own level without constraining the aggrieved contractors to approach this court. This would avoid unnecessary litigation and piling up of cases in this court.

ii) That the Chief Secretary is well advised to constitute a high empowered committee consisting of administrative Secretary of the concerned department, Secretary Finance and a senior Chief Accounts Officer, to examine these claims of the contractors and wherever claims are found genuine, the concerned department will make the payments without any further wastage of time, based on the recommendations of the aforesaid Committee.

iii) Should there be any delay in the settlement of admitted claims of the contractors, the amount shall be paid along with the interest at the lending rate of interest of the bank, so that the contractors are not made to face starvation and financial crisis."

6. It is not known as to whether these directions have been complied with by the respondents or not.

7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioners have executed the works allotted to them and have thus become entitled to the payments as are admitted by the concerned Executive Engineer. How the funds MOHAMMAD ALTAF NIMA 2021.12.14 12:33 WP I attest to the (C) and

integrity of this document are to be arranged by the respondents is none of the business of the petitioners nor that can be any reason or justification to deny the admitted amount to the petitioners.

8. As a result, this petition is allowed. The respondents, in particular respondent No. 5, are directed to arrange the requisite funds without any further waste of time and to release the admitted payments in favour of the petitioners for the works they have executed, within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order along-with copy of the paper book is served upon the respondent No. 5.

9. It is made clear that in case the payments as directed above is not paid within the stipulated period, the entire amount shall become payable along-with interest @ 6%.

10. This petition is allowed.

(SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 13.12.2021 Altaf

MOHAMMAD ALTAF NIMA 2021.12.14 12:33 WP I attest to the (C) and

integrity of this document