Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Altaf Hussain Dar vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 31 October, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on 17.10.2025
Pronounced on 31.10.2025
Uploaded on 31.10.2025
WP(C) No. 1111/2024
Altaf Hussain Dar .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Owais Shafi, Adv.
vs
Union Territory of J&K and others ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy.AG
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner, by means of this petition, seeks directions to the respondents
to release an amount of ₹60,24,000/- in his favour for various works
executed by him.
2. It is stated that the petitioner executed various works at the behest of
respondent Nos. 3 and 4. However, despite the issuance of a completion
certificate in his favour, the respondents have not released the amount of
₹60,24,000/-. It is further stated that respondent No. 4, through two
communications dated 12.02.2020 and 17.02.2021 respectively, requested
respondent No. 2 to release the funds so that the same could be disbursed to
the petitioner. Nevertheless, no amount has been released in the petitioner's
favour. The petitioner has provided details of the various work orders in
paragraph 4 of the petition, and the particulars of the amount due have been
mentioned in paragraph 8 of the petition.
3. The petitioner further states that he served a legal notice dated 01.11.2023
upon the respondents, seeking release of the aforementioned amount;
however, this too did not yield any positive outcome.
4. The respondents have submitted a response stating that, as per the report of
the Executive Engineer, City Drainage Civil Division, SMC, communicated
vide letter dated 12.06.2024, works amounting to ₹60,18,000/- were
executed by the Executive Engineer with the approval of the then
Superintending Engineer, Drainage Circle, SMC Srinagar. These works
were carried out on the verbal instructions of the then MLA, without
following any tendering process. It is further stated that the works were
executed without obtaining administrative approval. However, technical
sanction has been granted, and a test check certificate has also been issued
by the Executive Engineer. Additionally, it is stated that the Executive
Engineer has already requested the Commissioner, SMC, to settle the
petitioner's claim.
5. Heard and perused the record.
6. The claim put forth by the petitioners pertains to the payment of
₹60,24,000/- for various works executed by the petitioner. The respondents,
in their reply, have admitted the liability and stated that the delay in
payment is due to the non-availability of administrative approval. They
have further indicated that the request for release of payment will be
considered once post facto administrative approval is granted.
7. The respondents have admitted both the execution of works and their
liability to the petitioner. While they claim the petitioner is entitled to
₹60,18,000/- as opposed to ₹60,24,000/-, this admission of liability means
the petitioner cannot be deprived of the amount due to him due to a lack of
administrative approval. It was the duty of the respondents and their
officials to seek this approval before any work was executed. The
contractor cannot, therefore, be denied his legitimate dues simply because
administrative approval was lacking.
8. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions that:
a. The respondents shall release the admitted amount of ₹ ₹60,18,000/-
to the petitioner, along with simple interest at the rate of 6 % per
annum. This interest shall accrue from the date of the filing of the
writ petition until the date the amount is actually paid. The entire
payment must be completed within a period of three months from
the date of the receipt of this order.
b. Concerning the amount of ₹ 6,000/, the respondents shall consider
the petitioner's claim for its release. This consideration must be
completed within one month from the date of the receipt of this
order. If, upon consideration, the amount is found to be payable to
the petitioner, it shall also be released, along with simple interest at
the rate of 6% per annum, accruing from the date of the filing of the
instant writ petition until the actual payment is made. Any such
payment, if found due, must be released within the abovementioned
three-months period.
9. Disposed of.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
31.10.2025
Rakesh PS
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
