M/S. Farsang Technoid vs Through: Mr. Irfan Andleeb
2021 Latest Caselaw 1646 j&K/2

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1646 j&K/2
Judgement Date : 21 December, 2021

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

M/S. Farsang Technoid vs Through: Mr. Irfan Andleeb on 21 December, 2021

                                                                       Regular
                                                                      S. No. 30


      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT SRINAGAR

                                                     WP(C) 1921/2021
                                                     CM No. 6408/2021

M/S. Farsang Technoid
                                                                   ... Petitioner(s)
                           Through: Mr.M.A.Beigh, Adv.

                           V/s
Commissioner Secretary and Ors.

                           Through: Mr. Irfan Andleeb, Dy.AG.
                                                             ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
                                    ORDER

21.12.2021 Oral:

01. The Executive Engineer, PHE Division, Bijbehara, issued an E-NIT under No. 18-EE/PHED/Bijbehara of 2019-20 dated 23rd October, 2019, inviting bids from different Contractors/Executing Agencies for execution of work "Construction of RCC 0.30 lac Gallons capacity over head tank (OHT) and successful testing water supply scheme (WSS) Anichek". The petitioner also participated in the process and was allotted the said work vide Allotment Letter No. PHB/6045-47 dated 19th November, 2019. A formal agreement with regard to the execution of subject work was executed between the petitioner and the answering respondents. It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner has executed the work allotted to him to the satisfaction of the respondents.

02. On successful completion of the work, the petitioner submitted his bills for payment to the office of Executive Engineer, PHE Division, Bijbehara. The bills for an amount of Rs. 23.01.667/- were passed after proper check and deduction of necessary taxes at Divisional Office of the respondents. The aforesaid amount has already been released in favour of the petitioner. Regarding the rest of the amount, to which, the petitioner is entitled to, it is the stand of the respondents that payment of such amount was subject to verification of the work executed by the petitioner under languishing projects to be conducted by a committee constituted by the Government in the Jal Shakti Department. It has also come in the reply of the respondents that the said committee headed by the Superintending Engineer of the concerned Circle has visited the spot and verified the work executed by the petitioner. It is, however, the stand taken by the respondent- Executive Engineer that the balance payment could not be released in favour of the petitioner as the release of funds from the Government is awaited.

03. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that in view of the stand of the respondents taken in their reply, this petition is liable to be allowed. There is no dispute that the petitioner has executed the allotted work to the satisfaction of the respondents; even the bills for payment submitted by the petitioner are not disputed; a part of the payment has already been released. However, the balance payment was deferred on the ground that pursuant to the directions of the Government in Jal Shakti Department, amongst others, the work executed by the petitioner was directed to be verified by a committee constituted by the Government. It has also come on record that the said committee has since submitted its report and has verified the work executed by the petitioner. If that being the position, there is no reason or justification with the respondents to deny the legitimate payment due to the petitioner on account of execution of work allotted to him.

04. In view of the admission with regard to the execution of the work and the entitlement of the petitioner for the payment on account of such execution, there remains nothing in this writ petition for further adjudication. This Court has time and again reiterated that once work is executed by a Contractor or Executing Agency to the satisfaction of the respondents and the bills submitted by such Contractors or Executing Agencies are passed, the payment cannot be denied on account of paucity of funds. It is for the respondents to arrange the funds and then get the works executed. If they allot works to the Contractors and get them executed without their being any funds for execution, they do so only at their peril.

05. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed and respondents are directed to release the admitted balance payment of the petitioner for the subject work executed by him along with interest @ 6% within a period of two months from the date a copy of this Judgment along with complete paper book is served upon them. It is made clear that in case the liability towards the petitioner is not discharged within a period of two months, the amount shall become payable with interest @ 9% to be reckoned after completion of two months.

06. Disposed of along with connected CM(s) in the aforesaid terms.

(SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE Srinagar 21.12.2021 "Shamim Dar"