Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Reserved On: 04.03.2025 vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 9 May, 2025

Author: Sindhu Sharma

Bench: Sindhu Sharma

                                                                               2025:JKLHC-JMU:1140
  HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                  AT JAMMU

                                                         WP(C) No. 392/2023

                                                 Reserved on:      04.03.2025
                                              Pronounced on :      09.05.2025


M/s Tech Build & Associates                        .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)

                        Through:-    Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate

                  V/s

UT of J&K and others                                        .....Respondent(s)

                        Through:-    Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG

CORAM:       HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
                               JUDGMENT

01. The petitioner is a registered partnership concern and has invoked the

jurisdiction of this Court through one of his partners. The petitioner was

allotted the work for providing and laying of 25 mm thick mix seal carpet

along with laying of 50mm thick Bituminous Macadam in stretches patches

on Tomal Jattan Road Km 2nd RD 500-1000 and Km 3rd 0-1000.

02. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents for the release

of the outstanding admitted amount of Rs. 52,25,954/-, which is stated

to be due for the successful completion of the work executed by the

petitioner, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the

date of issuance of the completion certificate.

03. The aforesaid work allotted to the petitioner was executed by him

within the stipulated time and to the satisfaction of the respondents. The

cost of the work which was executed by him was Rs. 52,25,954/-. The

contention of the petitioner is that the work allotted to him was duly

executed and completed by him within the stipulated time and to the Page |2

satisfaction of the respondents and an amount of Rs. 52,25,954/- was 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1140

payable to the petitioner for execution of the work. Despite completion,

the said amount has not been paid to him till date. The respondent No.

4, vide communication dated 30.04.2015, requested respondent No. 3 to

accord post-facto approval for the execution of the aforesaid work by

the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has repeatedly

approached the respondents for release of the payment for the execution

of the work but respondent No. 1 expressed inability to process the

payment due to absence of formal administrative approval from

respondent No. 3. It was conveyed to the petitioner by respondent No. 4

that unless post-facto administrative approval is granted, payment

cannot be released.

04. Respondent No. 3, vide communication dated 09.05.2015,

accorded post-facto sanction for release of payment to the executing

agency in respect of the aforesaid work after completing all the codal

formalities to the cost of Rs. 49.50 lacs. The respondent No. 4 again,

vide communication dated 27.01.2020, requested respondent No. 3 to

accord post-facto administrative approval of Rs. 52.25 lakhs and also

sought allocation of funds.

05. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 03.12.2021

to respondent No. 4 seeking release of the outstanding payment. He

stated that, to the best of his knowledge, administrative approval stood

accorded and there existed no bar on the release the payment. Despite

completion of work and repeated communications and representations,

the petitioner has not been paid the outstanding amount of Rs.

52,25,954/-. The respondents, despite admitting their liability to pay the Page |3

petitioner, continue to withhold the payment on the pretext of non- 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1140

availability of funds.

06. The respondents have objected to the claim of the petitioner for

release of payment to the tune of Rs. 52,25,954/- on the ground that no

such agreement has ever been executed between the petitioner and the

answering respondents for the construction of the road. The respondents

submit that the work executed by the petitioner has not even been

approved by the competent authority. It is submitted that such a claim

must be based on a valid contract between the parties. In this case, no

such agreement was ever executed. There is no e-tender, allotment

order, administrative approval, or technical sanction for the alleged

work carried out by the petitioner, and the claim that it was done at the

behest of some officer cannot be the basis for payment. The petitioner

has failed to substantiate the claim and is thus not entitled to any such

relief. The petitioner, despite knowing the fact that no such road had

been duly sanctioned, cannot now claim payment for the same. The

petition is therefore not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

07. The respondents have submitted that the present petition has been

filed to enforce a monetary claim, for which an alternate remedy is

available. It is a settled law that the writ jurisdiction is generally

invoked where no disputed questions of fact exist, and where the action

of the State is arbitrary and unreasonable. In the present case, the

department disputes the amount claimed and submits that the work was

never sanctioned, nor were funds earmarked. The respondents also

submit that this petition suffers from delay and laches.

08. The only issue which is to be considered is if there was no

administrative approval, technical sanction, or funds available with the Page |4

respondents, then how and why was the work executed, and by whom, 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1140

in the absence of such approval and funds. A contractor who executes

work on behalf of a government department does so on the legitimate

belief that the work is duly sanctioned and approved. It is not the

responsibility of the contractor to verify whether all formalities,

including administrative approval and technical sanction, have been

completed. It is for the respondents to explain how such work was

undertaken in the absence of the required sanctions and approvals.

09. The plea of the respondents regarding delay in filing the petition is

also not tenable. The petitioner has been continuously pursuing his claim

with the respondents. The communication dated 09.05.2015 by the

respondent No. 3, seeking release of funds and enabling his office to make

payment towards the work done liability, clearly indicates execution of

work and acknowledgment of liability by the respondents. Therefore, the

petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches,

particularly when the respondents themselves have sought release of funds

for payment of the work done liability.

10. The execution of works stands admitted by the respondents, and

the relevant details have also been provided by them. The respondents

cannot avoid their liability to pay by taking refuge in the absence of

technical sanction and administrative approval, especially when the

responsibility for obtaining such approvals rested solely with them.

Despite this, the respondents are denying the claim on the ground of

lack of administrative approval. This plea is not available to them, as it

was within their domain to ensure the requisite approvals were

obtained. They cannot now raise this plea at this stage to defeat the

legitimate claim of the petitioner.

Page |5

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2610 of 2019, 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1140

decided on 08.03.2019, titled "M/s Surya Construction v. The State

of U.P.", held as under:

"It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated 22.03.2014 that there is no dispute as to the amount that has to be paid to the appellant. Despite this, when the appellant knocked at the doors of the High Court in a writ petition being Writ Civil No. 25216/2014, the impugned judgment dated 02.05.2014 dismissed the writ petition stating that disputed questions of fact arise and that the amount due arises out of a contract. We are afraid the High Court was wholly incorrect inasmuch as there was no disputed question of fact. On the contrary, the amount payable to the appellant is wholly undisputed. Equally, it is well settled that where the State behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India *'ABL International Ltd. and Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others' (2004 (3) SCC 553)]."

12. In the present case, the respondents have acted arbitrarily,

unreasonably, and unfairly. Since the liability is admitted, the petitioner is

held entitled to payment of the amount due for the work executed by him.

13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition

is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the outstanding

payment of Rs. 52,25,954/- in favour of the petitioner within a period of

eight weeks from the date a copy of this order as well as the writ

petition is served upon them by the petitioner.

14. This petition is disposed of accordingly.

(Sindhu Sharma) Judge

Jammu: