Point of Law : Respondents have made the petitioner to execute the work out of his own funds, it is their bounden duty to reimburse the petitioner at the earliest, that too with interest.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondents to release the admitted liability amounting to Rs.1,54,72,468/ on account of works executed by him.

2. Petitioner is a Small Scale Industrial Unit registered with Directorate of Industries & Commerce and J&K Small Scale Industries Development Corporation. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was allotted work of construction of three number double bedroom Huts at Verinag by respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. Verinag Development Authority. The work was allotted to the petitioner through respondent No.4 i.e. J&K Small Scale Industries Development Corporation (SICOP) in terms of its communication No.CEO/VDA/1933-34 dated 24.02.2015. It was provided that the huts shall be constructed as per the drawings/specifications approved by Verinag Development Authority and completed within a period of 120 days from the date of acceptance of the offer. Accordingly, offer of the petitioner was accepted and the allotment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner on 14.03.2015. The specifications of work were also conveyed to it. It is averred by the petitioner that after execution of work, fully completed structures were handed over to respondent No.5 on 24.05.2015. Petitioner has also placed on record a copy of the document evidencing the handing over and taking over of executed works.

3. It is contended that after the execution of the works and handing over of completed structures, petitioner raised bills in the amount of Rs.2, 31,72,468/ with respondents No.1 to 3, out of which an amount of Rs.77.00 lakhs only stands released in favour of the petitioner by respondents No.1 to 3 through respondents No.4 and 5. Thus, a sum of Rs.1,54,72,468/, according to the petitioner, is still due to it, which, despite reminders, has not been released.

4. Respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. Verinag Development Authority, in their objections, have admitted that the works have been executed by the petitioner and that whole of the amount has not been released in his favour. Para 2 of the parawise reply of the objections is relevant to the context and the same is reproduced as under:

“2. That in reply to para No.6 – 10, it is submitted that the works have been completed by the petitioner and handed over to the answering respondents department. The works have been taken up by answering respondents department in hand under Centrally Sponsored Scheme “Development of Mega Tourist Destination from Naagar Nagar Watlab” under PIDDC. The Government of India Ministry of Tourism has released part payment to the State Government on this account and accordingly the same has been dispersed among various contractors engaged by the Department from time to time including the petitioner. It is also a fact that the Government of India, Ministry of Tourism, stopped funding to the Scheme. Hence the payment due to contractors including the petitioner could not be disbursed. However, funds are being arranged by the State Government for settlement of the liabilities on account of various works executed by the various contractors including the petitioner under the said scheme. As and when the funds are released the same shall be disbursed to the contractors including the petitioner.”

5. Respondents No.4 and 5 have also filed separate objections. In their objections, the said respondents have admitted that the petitioner has already completed execution of works and handed over the same to respondents No.1 to 3. It has been further averred that part payment has been made to the petitioner and the balance amount is still outstanding. The said respondents have further averred that once they will receive the payment from respondents No.1 to 3, they will liquidate the outstanding balance of petitioner.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

7. From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the respondents have neither disputed the allotment o