Jammu & Kashmir High Court
The Chief Engineer Pmgsy Jkrrda vs M/S C&Z Associates (Joint Ventures) on 16 May, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
(Through Virtual Mode)
Reserved on: 28.04.2025
Pronounced on: 16.05.2025
CJ Court
LPA No. 73/2025
[WP(C) No. 3169/2019]
The Chief Engineer PMGSY JKRRDA ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Jammu and others
Through: Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG
v/s
M/s C&Z Associates (Joint Ventures) .... Respondent(s)
through its partner Ashwani Thakur.
Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.
JUDGMENT
1. The respondent-firm was allotted the contract for construction of
balance work of road from Khaog to Batodi, and it executed the work
to the satisfaction of the appellants and even the completion certificate
was also issued in its favour. During execution of the contract, the
respondent did additional work by way of Slip Clearance in the years
2013, 2014 and 2015 amounting to Rs. 45.96 lacs in total, regarding
which various inter se communications were made by officials of the
appellant-Department to arrange the funds against the additional work
done by the respondent in the years 2013, 2014 and 2015. The
respondent has placed on record the communications dated
30.10.2013 and 25.01.2017 to demonstrate that the funds were sought
by the officials of the appellants to clear the liability of the
respondent. When the said liability was not cleared by the appellants,
the respondent filed a writ petition for directing the appellants to
release the payment of Rs. 45.96 lacs in its favour against the admitted
work done liability by way of Slip Clearance in the years 2013, 2014
and 2015.
2. Appellants objected to the claim of the respondent by submitting that
in absence of work order, technical sanction, administrative approval
and also availability of the funds, the claim of the respondent cannot
be considered and even no tender has been issued for the additional
work allegedly executed by the respondent.
3. The learned Writ Court vide judgment dated 26.11.2024 allowed the
writ petition filed by the respondent and directed the appellants to pay
Rs. 45.96 lacs to respondent within a period of six weeks from receipt
of copy of the order.
4. Appellants have impugned the judgment dated 26.11.2024 through
this intra-court appeal on similar grounds, as were raised by them
while objecting to the writ petition like absence of work order,
technical sanction and administrative approval, and non-availability of
the funds, etc. Though the issue of delay has been raised in this appeal
but the same was never urged by the appellants before the learned writ
court, as such the same cannot be considered in the appeal.
5. Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned A.A.G, has argued that in absence of
administrative approval and tendering process, no liability can be
fastened upon the appellants in respect of work executed by the
respondent.
6. Per contra, Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has
argued that there is admission on the part of the appellants in respect
of execution of additional work by the respondent, which is duly
substantiated by the communications placed on record by the
respondent, whereby the funds were sought by the officials of the
appellants for release of the admitted liability of the respondent.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Appellants have not denied the execution of work by the respondent.
The only ground on which the claim the respondent is being objected
to by the appellants is that the respondent has executed the work
without any approval/sanction of the competent authority and in
absence of tendering process.
9. This is an admitted fact that the respondent was allotted construction
of balance work of road from Khaog to Batodi and while the
respondent was in the process of executing the said work, additional
works were assigned to the respondent. The communications dated
30.10.2013 and 25.01.2017 bear testimony to the fact that amount of
Rs. 25.45 and Rs. 20.51 were sought by appellant No.3 from appellant
No.2. Appellants have not denied the execution of additional work. It
is difficult to believe that a Contractor would execute the work on his
own without being asked to do so by the officials of the appellants,
thereby putting his financial interest in peril. Since the appellants have
not denied the execution of additional work by the respondent but are
objecting to the claim of the respondent only on the ground of lack of
administrative approval and tendering process, the appellants are
under obligation to clear the liability of the respondent. In this context,
it would be appropriate to take note of the judgment passed in case
titled as "Union Territory of J&K & Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar" 2021
Legal Eagle (J&K) 110, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this court
has observed that the petitioner who was allotted the contract by the
Housing Board cannot be expected to first verify as to whether the
contract that has been allotted to him was being executed within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Housing Board or not, nor was he
expected to refuse the execution of the work simply because the
subject matter of the work was not put to open tendering system.
10. We have examined the judgment passed by the writ court and we do
not find any reason to show indulgence. The present appeal is found to
be misconceived and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu
16.05.2025
Karam Chand/Secy.
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
