JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.-The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking a direction upon the respondents to release an amount of Rs.12,49,517/- along with CDR of Rs.20,000/- in respect of the work/contract executed by him for laying telephone cables in Sanatnagar Srinagar in the year 1998. A further direction upon the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.28,07,975/- to the petitioner for the work executed and completed by him for laying telephone cables at Kulgam in the year 2003 has also been sought. The petitioner has also claimed interest @ 24% per annum.

2. The case set up by the petitioner is that in the year 1998, respondent No.1 allotted a contract for laying telephone cables at Sanat Nagar, Srinagar, in favour of the petitioner and the contract was completed by him within the stipulated time. It is averred that the final bill was prepared and furnished by the respondent No.1 for an amount of Rs.10,27,423/- and the same was submitted to the respondent No.3 for release of payment in favour of the petitioner. It is alleged that respondent No.3 released the payment in favour of respondent No.1 but the same in turn was not released by the said respondent to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, a further sum of Rs.4.00 lacs is also outstanding against the respondents.

3. The other part of the claim that has been projected by the petitioner is that in the year 2003, he was allotted contract for laying telephone cables at Kulgam by respondent No.1. However, during execution of the said work, the petitioner was asked to stop the work at site because of the directions given by respondent No.3. At the time when the execution of the work was stopped, the petitioner had completed the work for an amount of Rs.28,07,975/- and the final bill in respect of the same was raised which was processed by the respondents. It is alleged that R&B Department of the State Government had caused some damage to the completed work, as a result of which a dispute arose between respondents and R&B Department and the respondents asked the R&B Department of the State Government to pay the amount of damages and compensation directly to them and the petitioner was asked to wait for some time for payment of his dues.

4. According to the petitioner, the amounts incurred by him in executing the works allotted to him in the year 1998 and 2003 are admitted the by respondents but in spite of this, they are illegally withholding the admitted dues merely on the pretext that the completed works have been damaged by R&B Department of the State Government. It is contended by the petitioner that the dispute between the respondents and the R&B Department of the State Government has nothing to do with his claim for payment of his dues and the same cannot be made a pretext to deny him the dues.

5. Reply on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 and 4 has been filed and the said reply has been adopted by respondent No.3 as well. It is contended in the reply that the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact which arise out of a civil contract, as such, the same cannot be adjudicated upon in the writ proceedings. It is further averred that so far as the contract of 1998 is concerned, only a sum of Rs.7,27,945/- is payable whereas nothing is due to the petitioner in respect of contract allotted in the year 2003. At the same time it has been contended by the respondents that respondent No.1 is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.10.6 lacs from the petitioner. The respondents have based the said contention on Clause 68(3) of the contract proposal, according to which a sum or money due and payable to a contractor can be appropriated by the respondents and set off against any claim of the respondents for due payment of sum of money arising out of and under any other contract. Thus, according to the respondents, respondent No.1 is entitled to set off an amount of Rs.10.6 lacs from the contractor towards the cost of the material that has not been returned by the petitio