Mohammad Ayub Rather Age 48 Years vs Union Territory Of Jammu And
2025 Latest Caselaw 1861 J&K/2

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Mohammad Ayub Rather Age 48 Years vs Union Territory Of Jammu And on 29 October, 2025

                                                            S.No. 86
                                                            Supplementary List
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                         AT SRINAGAR


                              WP(C) No. 2664/2025
                               CM No. 7053/2025


   MOHAMMAD AYUB RATHER AGE 48 YEARS                   ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
   S/O NOOR MOHAMMAD RATHER
   R/O NEW THEED HARWAN SRINAGAR


   Through: Mr. Rafiq Bhat, Advocate


                                         Vs.
      1. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND                               ...Respondent(s)
         KASHMIR                THROUGH
         COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY TO GOVT.
         PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CIVIL
         SECRETARIAT SRINGAAR/JAMMU
      2. CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS
         DEPARTMENT     (P.W.D) SRINAGAR
         KASHMIR.
      3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS
         DEPARTMETN       (R&B)  DIVISION
         SUMBAL BANDIPORA.
      4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
         PUBLIC WORKS DEPARMTNET SUB-
         DIVISION SUBMAL BANDIPORA
      5. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC
         WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS &
         BUILDINGN)                CIRCLE
         GANDERBAL/BANDIPORA
      6.

   Through: Mr. Alla Ud Din Ganai, AAG


   CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL,JUDGE
                                      ORDER

29-10-2025

1. By the medium of the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

i. Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to release and pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs 58,31,072/- being the due amount against the work allotted, executed and completed by him pursuant to the authority/allotment mentioned against the said work.

ii. Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest at the prevailing bank rate on the aforesaid amount from the date it became due, i.e., the date of the bill. iii. Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay Rs.

3,00,000/- to the petitioner as compensation for the loss suffered on account of undue withholding of the due amount, which the petitioner could have otherwise invested in his business to earn profits, and also for the mental agony and loss of goodwill/reputation caused amongst the public and banking institutions due to non-payment of the legitimate dues, besides litigation expenses.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court

to the bills annexed with the petition, which stand verified by the

Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B) Division Sumbal,

Bandipora. As per such verification, an amount of Rs. 58,31,072/- Lacs

after deductions is payable to the petitioner. Learned counsel further

submits that despite the admitted liability, the amount has not been

released in favour of the petitioner, who had executed the work relating

to construction of additional accommodation for various Government

offices at Hajin, Sumbal, Bandipora, allotted to him vide order dated

09.10.2019. It is further submitted that the petitioner completed the

work well within time, the final bills were duly passed and verified by

the respondents, yet the payment was withheld despite several

representations made to the concerned departmental authorities.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this

Court rendered in WP(C) No. 2472/2022, titled M/s Sain Soldier

Engineer and Contractor Pvt. Ltd. through its Director vs. Union

Territory of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. PWD (R&B) Department, Jammu & Ors., decided on 26.09.2025 at Jammu

Wing, and submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by

the said judgment. It is, accordingly, prayed that the instant petition be

disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of

the petitioner in the light of the judgment (supra).

4. Mr. Alla Ud Din, learned AAG, on being put to notice, enters

appearance on behalf of the respondents. He submits that he is not

averse to the disposal of the petition in the manner proposed by learned

counsel for the petitioner.

5. In view of the consensus arrived at between the learned counsel for the

parties, the present petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage.

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with a direction to

respondents 2 to 4 to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the

judgment rendered by this Court in WP(C) No. 2472/2022, decided on

26.09.2025 (Jammu Wing), if the same is found applicable to the facts

and circumstances of the present case, within a period of four weeks

from the date a copy of this order is made available to them. While

according such consideration, the respondents shall also take into

account the verified bills annexed with the petition, which indicate that

an amount of Rs. 58,31,072/- (Rupees Fifty-Eight Lakh Thirty-One

Thousand and Seventy-Two only), after deductions, is payable to the

petitioner. It is made clear that in the event the admitted liability

amount is not released in favour of the petitioner within the time

granted by this Court, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the

rate of 6% per annum from the date the said amount became payable and was withheld by the respondents. The interest component shall be

recoverable from the officer(s) responsible for the delay in its release.

6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms.

(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL) JUDGE SRINAGAR:

29-10-2025 Mubashir Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No