Order (Oral)

Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J.—The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order 11.08.2020 passed in OWP No. 123/2018, by virtue of which the learned Single Judge has directed the respondents/appellants herein to release the admitted liability on account of the work done by the petitioner/respondent herein.

Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:-

2. The respondent is a contractor and undertakes civil contract works for execution for various departments. It appears that many contracts came to be allotted to the respondent by the J&K Housing Board for construction of community halls, multipurpose halls, lanes, drains etc. between 2014-2015. The total bill amount for the work executed came to be around Rs. 125.14 lacs out of which an amount of approximately Rs. 115. 14 lacs is stated to have been still outstanding and payable by the J&K Housing Board towards the works so executed by the respondent herein.

Having failed to get the amount for the work done, the petitioner/respondent herein states that he was forced to file the writ petition before the learned Single Judge in the first round of litigation bearing WP(C) No. 123/2018. This came to be disposed of vide judgement and order dated 30.01.2018, by virtue of which the respondents were directed to make payment of the admitted amount payable to the petitioner within a period of six weeks.

3. An LPA bearing No.177/2018 was preferred against the said judgement and order on the ground that the petition had been disposed of without affording any opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The Letters Patent Appeal succeeded, judgment and order dated 30.01.2018 was set aside and the matter was considered yet again by the writ Court.

4. Before the writ Court, the stand of the J&K Housing Board was that the petitioner/respondent herein did execute works for the period between 2013-2014 and 2015 and that the payments were shown as outstanding pending liabilities for want of funds to be released by the Government. A report dated 02.03.2017 in this regard is stated to have been submitted to the Housing & Urban Development Department vide communication dated 02.03.2017 as reminder.

5. The stand of the Board further reveals that the amounts were certainly required to be released in favour of the petitioner but after due verification. In paragraph 4 of the objections, however, the Housing Board appears to have admitted that the extent of work executed by the petitioner/respondent herein was to the tune of Rs. 61.18 lacs for Unit No. 1 and Rs. 63.96 lacs for Unit No. II as per the record, which was subject to verification.

6. In the reply filed by the Planning Department, the stand taken was that it was the J&K Housing board, that was required to deal with the claims of the petitioner, as the contracts were allotted by the said Board. The reply further suggests that it had expressed no knowledge about the receipt of the claim in regard to the work done and also denied any assurance having been made by the said Department in favour of the contractor.

7. Mr. S. S. Nanda, learned Sr. AAG stated that no payment was due and payable to the contractor/respondent herein, inasmuch as, the contracts were allotted without jurisdiction by the J&K Housing Board. It was stated that the contracts had been allotted without inviting bids from eligible contractors and that the entire process of allotment was arbitrary. It was further urged that the works were executed even beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the J&K Housing Board and therefore, in those circumstances no payment was legally justified to the petitioner/respondent herein.

8. It was stated that the issue got examined by the Government through various enquiries dated 14.07.2015, 15.06.2017 and 05.10.2020 whereby the Committees were constituted and accordingly enquiry reports were submitted by the Committees respectively. The committee so constituted vide Govt. Order No. 178-HUD of 2015 submitt