[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
M/S Aquatech vs The Jammu And Kashmir Sports Council & ... on 20 January, 2026
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 1781/2020
Date of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026
Uploaded on : 20.01.2026
M/S Aquatech
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate
Vs
The Jammu and Kashmir Sports Council & Ors.
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Anshuja Tak, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
01. The institution of this writ petition by the petitioner
acting through its partner-Gurmit Singh is with an en
objective to claim the writ reliefs as prayed for, which are
reproduced as under :-
"
I. Mandamus commanding the respondents to release the
Earnest money in the shape of CDR No.
913040003156730(1547), dated 16th of January, 2013
for an amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- issued by the Axis
Bank, Jalandhar dated 16th of January, 2013;
II. Mandamus commanding the respondents to release the
two (2) Bank Guarantees bearing No. 01550100000243
dated 26th of February, 2013 for an amount of Rs.
8,89,447.50 and the Bank Guarantee bearing No.
01550100000246 dated 3rd of June, 2013 for the same
amount issued by the Axis Bank, Jalandhar and
submitted by the petitioner as security deposit for the
execution of the contract ;
III. Mandamus commanding the respondents to release the
balance payment of Rs. 15,12,126/- as also the security
deducted from the running account bills of the
petitioner ;
IV. Mandamus commanding the respondents to release the
due payments of the petitioner along with interest @
12% from the date the payments became due to the
petitioner and ;
V. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, may also be granted in
favour of the petitioner and against the respondents
along with cost."
02. Upon the filing of the writ petition, this Court came to put
the respondents on notice in terms of an order dated
05.11.2020 inviting their reply/objections to the writ
petition. Despite repeated opportunities, reply eventually
came on record on 28.09.2022 filed on behalf of the
respondents No. 1 to 3 by Advocate Ms. Anshuja Tak.
03. The institution of the writ petition by the petitioner is
resting on a cause of action that NIT No. 37 of 2012-13
dated 02.01.2013 for the purpose of construction/up-
gradation/supply and installation of civil and electro-
mechanical works for the commission of existing
swimming pool at the M.A. Stadium of Jammu including
design proposals for complete job, testing and
commissioning at the estimated cost of Rs. 190.00 lacs
was responded to by the petitioner in which the petitioner
came to qualify the technical as well as financial bid
evaluation stage as being the lowest bidder and then
being called upon by the respondent No. 2-Executive
Engineer, J&K Sports Council, Construction Division,
Sports House, M.A. Stadium, Jammu of the respondent
No. 1-J&K Sports Council to furnish performance
guarantee to 10 % of the tender cost amounting to Rs.
17,78,895/- and also to mobilize resources for execution
of the contract for which Letter of Intent dated
20.02.2013 was issued without any corresponding formal
allotment order which later came to be issued on
07.03.2013 wherefrom completion period of four months
was to be reckoned.
04. The petitioner is said to have deposited an amount of Rs.
3,80,000/- as earnest money along with furnishing of
bank guarantee amount equivalent to the 5% of the
contract value.
05. Despite all handicaps which are said to have been
created from the end of the respondents related to
execution of the contract work, the petitioner is said to
have carried out the execution as per the drawings
submitted by it notwithstanding absence of approval to
the said drawings coming from the respondents' end.
06. The petitioner, as per the averments made in the writ
petition, is said to have completed first stage of the
contract work which was approximately 35% of the total
civil work on the basis whereof the petitioner generated a
running account bill for Rs. 52,09,697.50, in response
whereto nothing was heard or responded to from the end
of the respondents despite reminders one after another
submitted by the petitioner.
07. Instead, it is submitted that the petitioner was subjected
to a threatening posture from the end of the respondents,
who initially issued communications and ultimately
proceeded to issue a final notice dated 20.07.2013,
calling upon the petitioner to resume the work and
complete the same without any further delay
08. The petitioner from its end is said to have responded to
the said final notice by its reply dated 29.07.2013 with
the situation resulting in termination of the petitioner's
contractual engagement by issuance of letter dated
30.07.2013 issued by the respondent No. 1.
09. The petitioner is said to have approached this Court with
a writ petition OWP No. 1191/2013 during the pendency
of which a mutual agreement was arrived at for
resumption of the work which facilitated disposal of the
writ petition vide an order dated 29.11.2013 leading
resumption of work w.e.f 04.12.2013 by the petitioner
and concluding the work by 31.03.2014 against which
the petitioner is said to have received Rs. 1,62,76,824/-
leaving Rs. 15,12,126/- as unreleased payment along
with earnest money deposit of the petitioner and
performance guarantee of an amount of Rs. 8,89,447.50.
The last payment released in favour of the petitioner is
said to be on 23.03.2018 for Rs. 7,01,795/-.
10. The petitioner's grievance emanates that despite having
earned Work Completion Certificate dated 11.03.2016
issued by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner is being
subjected to suffer loss of his earnest money, bank
guarantee money thereby constraining it to come forward
with the present writ petition.
11. The respondents in their reply have come forward
admitting that the work has been completed by the
petitioner on 14.02.2018 but release of CDR for Rs.
3,80,000/- could not be effected because of being
misplaced whereas the balance payment for the amount
of work done by the petitioner was also in the process of
release due to some procedural requirements getting
delayed whereas two bank guarantees amounting to Rs.
8,89,447.50 each are said to have been forfeited even
prior to the filing of OWP No. 1191/2013.
12. Given the limited nature of the controversy remaining in
view of the admission made by the respondents that CDR
is intended to be released in favour of the petitioner and
the balance work payment also made to the petitioner,
the only controversy relates to the two bank guarantees
said to have been forfeited even prior to the institution of
the writ petition OWP No. 1191/2013.
13. Once the petitioner is said to have carried out the
completion of the contract work then whether the
respondent No. 1 was still entitled to forfeit the said two
guarantees is an issue on which the respondent No. 1
ought to have first afforded an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner seeking its response and then pass a
reasoned order as to how come in the face of carrying out
the project to its completion, the petitioner was still to
suffer loss of two bank guarantees.
14. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a
direction relatable to the grievance of the petitioner with
respect to the two bank guarantees. The respondent No.
1 is directed to consider the matter afresh relatable to the
said two bank guarantees of the petitioner in the light of
the completion of the contract work by the petitioner.
15. The petitioner is directed to approach the respondent No.
1 with a detailed representation and upon making of
which the respondent No. 1 to take a final decision within
a period of three months. In case, the petitioner would
still be left aggrieved then the disposal of the writ petition
not to prejudice the right of the petitioner to come up
with a fresh writ petition.
16. The detailed order is following the order dated
28.02.2023 vide which the writ petition was ordered to be
disposed of as is hereby being done.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
JAMMU
19.01.2026
SUNIL
Whether the order is speaking ? : Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable ? : Yes/No
