Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S York Builders Pvt Ltd vs State Of Punjab And Others on 27 September, 2022
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 27.09.2022
214-1 CWP-5722-2019
M/S YORK BUILDERS PVT LTD.
... Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
... Respondents
214-2 CWP-23935-2019
M/S BIRBAL KUMAR SINGLA, GOVT. CONTRACTOR
... Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
... Respondents
214-3 CWP-5729-2019
M/S S.F CONSTRUCTIONS
... Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
... Respondents
214-4 CWP-23986-2019
TARSEM KUMAR
... Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
... Respondents
214-5 CWP-24026-2019
M/S GURJEET SINGH CONTRACTOR
... Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
... Respondents
214-6 CWP-24008-2019
M/S DHARAMPAL CONTRACTOR
... Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
... Respondents
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 01-10-2022 02:07:53 :::
CWP-CWP-5722-2019 (with 7connected petitions) -2-
214-7 CWP-23992-2019
M/S SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL CONTRACTOR
... Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
... Respondents
214-8 CWP-23958-2019
M/S SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL CONTRACTOR
... Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.
****
Present: Mr. Chirag Girdhar, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Parambir Singh, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 5 in CWP-5729-2019.
Mr. Tarun Seth, Advocate for
Mr. Sumit Jain, Advocate
for respondents No.3 to 5 in CWP-24008-2019 &
for respondents No.2, 4 and 5 in CWP-24026-2019.
Ms. Deepika Bansal, Advocate for
Mr. Sumit Jain, Advocate
for respondents No.3, 4 and 6 in CWP-23992-2019.
Mr. Subhash Chand, Advocate for
Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate
for respondent No.3 in CWP-24026-2019.
None for remaining respondents.
****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
This order of mine shall dispose of the aforesaid bunch of eight
petitions wherein a common question arises for determination. Learned
counsel for the respective parties appearing before the Court today do not
dispute the passing of common order.
2 of 4
CWP-CWP-5722-2019 (with 7connected petitions) -3-
For the facility of reference, the facts are being taken from
CWP-5722 of 2019.
The instant petition has been instituted under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of
Mandamus directing the respondents to pay on account of delay in
disbursement of the payment qua works executed by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
had executed various works assigned to it from time to time and there had
never been any complaint against the due and proper execution of the works.
The bill regarding satisfactory execution of the work was duly approved by
the competent authority, however, the payment in that regard was not
released. The petitioner approached the respondent authorities on a number
of occasions for disbursement of the outstanding payment and even a legal
notice was also got served upon the respondent authority, but all in vain.
Consequently, the petitioner was constrained to file a CWP-24245 of 2017,
which was disposed of on 26.10.2017 with a direction to the respondents to
decide the legal notice within a period of three weeks and in case any amount
is found payable, then to release the same in favour of the petitioner. The
said order, however, was not complied with by the respondents compelling
the petitioner to file COCP No.3447 of 2017. The said COCP was disposed
of on 06.12.2017 with direction to the respondents to take steps to purge the
contempt at the earliest. Consequently, the respondents decided the legal
notice served by the petitioner, however, the claim qua payment of interest on
delayed payment has not been considered in the speaking order so passed by
the respondent authorities while deciding the legal notice. The present
petitioner thus seeks the release of interest on account of delay in
disbursement of the due payment.
3 of 4
CWP-CWP-5722-2019 (with 7connected petitions) -4-
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s), however, fairly submit that
the petitioner(s) are willing to withdraw the present petitions enabling them
to avail alternative efficacious remedy of approaching the Civil Court for
seeking the aforesaid relief since various judgments of the High Court have
held the petitioners (in the concerned petitions) to be entitled for interest in
the cases where there is an inexplicable delay in release of the due payment.
The petitioner(s) also seek liberty to raise all such pleas before the Civil
Court and/or any other competent Forum/Authority in appropriate
proceedings and at appropriate stage.
The aforesaid prayer is not opposed by the learned counsel for
the respondents.
Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the
each case, the present petitions are disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty
as aforesaid.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
27.09.2022 JUDGE
rajender
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
