Ghulam Mohammad Najar vs Rigzain Sampheal And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1358 j&K/2

                                                       03
                                                        (Regular   list)
      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                  AT SRINAGAR
                                                         CPOWP No. 329/2018
                                                          OWP No. 1886/2018

Ghulam Mohammad Najar                                        ..... Petitioner (s)

                          Through:         Ms. Arifa Jan, Adv.
                                           with Ms. Nazima, Adv.

                                     V/s
Rigzain Sampheal and Ors.                             ..... Respondent(s)

                          Through:         Mr. Illyas Laway, GA
Officer in Court:                          Mr. Minga Sherpa,
                                           Managing Director, JKTDC
CORAM:
                Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajnesh Oswal, Judge.

                                     ORDER

20.10.2023

1. Personal appearance of Mr. Minga Sherpa, Managing Director, JK

TDC, is dispensed with.

2. OWP No. 1886/2018:

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken

up for final disposal.

4. The petitioner has filed the present petition for directing the

respondents to release in his favour following amounts:

i) Rs. 6.5 lacs on account of renovation/upgradation of the

Kitchen of 2nd Floor of Hotel Lal Rukh, Srinagar.

Page |2 CRM(M) No. 305/2022 CrlM No. 915/2022

ii) Rs. 14,59,870/- on account of construction of staff

quarters by using retrieved old timber of Hut at

Gulmarg.

iii) Rs. 7.58 lacs for fitting and other allied civil and sanitary

works at TRC, Srinagar.

5. The petitioner has also prayed for grant of interest @ 18% on account

of delay in release of payment in his favour. Neither hard nor soft

copy of the reply is available but Mr. Illyas Laway, learned

Government Advocate during the course of hearing has produced

copy of the reply in open Court, the same is taken on record.

6. In the response, it is stated that the executing agency projected the

bills on account of execution of the above stated works and while

processing the bills, it was found that the requisite codal formalities

were not followed in the matter. It is further stated that the works

were allotted to the petitioner without any tender and the costs of the

works have exceeded more than 10%.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on

record.

8. It is an admitted case of parties that the works mentioned above were

executed by the petitioner and the same is duly substantiated by

Annexure-R1 placed on record by the respondents themselves, issued

by Executive Engineer, JK TDC, Srinagar. In the statement total

amount payable in respect of works of the petitioner comes around to Page |3 CRM(M) No. 305/2022 CrlM No. 915/2022

Rs. 10.97 lacs whereas an amount of Rs. 17.49 lacs stands already

released in favour of the petitioner. The contention raised by the

petitioner that the codal formalities have not been completed is

squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court

in case titled UT of J&K Vs. Sanjeev Kumar reported in 2021 Legal

Eagles (J&K) 110.

9. In view of the admission on the part of the respondents in respect of

admitted liability of Rs. 10.97 lacs, the writ petition is disposed of

with a direction to the respondents to release an amount of Rs. 10.97

lacs in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from

today failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6%

per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition till its

realization.

10.Disposed of as above.

11. CPOWP NO. 329/2018:

12. With the disposal of writ petition, the contempt proceedings are

closed and the contempt petition is disposed of accordingly.

(Rajnesh Oswal) Judge SRINAGAR 20.10.2023 Aasif