Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
SINDHU SHARMA, J.
Ab. Rashid Malik - Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory of J&K & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 873 of 2021
Decided On : 07-05-2022
Construction Works - Payment Dispute - NABARD - PWD Act, Section 3 - Summary: The court discussed the execution of road construction works by the petitioner, the admission of liability by the respondents, and the dispute over the payment for the executed works. The court highlighted the lack of administrative approval and technical sanction for the works, the admission of liability by the respondents, and the arbitrary and unfair actions of the respondents. The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to pay the balance amount for the executed works along with interest.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a contractor, executed construction works of road allotted to him by the respondents. The payment due to him for the works has not been made, despite the admission of liability by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the works were executed by the petitioner, the liability for payment was admitted by the respondents, and the lack of administrative approval and technical sanction for the works. The respondents' actions were deemed arbitrary and unfair.
Issues: Dispute over payment for executed works, lack of administrative approval and technical sanction for the works, admission of liability by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The lack of administrative approval and technical sanction for the works does not absolve the respondents from their liability to pay for the executed works. The admission of liability by the respondents and their arbitrary and unfair actions support the petitioner's entitlement to payment.
Final Decision: The petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to pay the petitioner the balance amount for the executed works along with interest.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner, a contractor by profession claims to have executed different construction works of road which were allotted to him after participating in the tendering process issued by the respondents. That pursuant to different work orders, the petitioner has executed the construction of road works from Kotli to Shikari Road situated at Village Kotli/Shikari, Tehsil Mahore, District Reasi.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B) Spl. Sub Division, Mahore-respondent No. 5 herein and Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B) Spl. Sub-Division, Mahore i.e. respondent No. 4 after on spot enquiry and measurement of different types of road works executed by the petitioner had prepared detailed estimate of the entire road construction work done from Kotli to Shikari under NABARD with cost overrun scheme.
3. The Superintending Engineer PWD (R&B), Reasi-Udhampur vide his communication dated 03.10.2015 conveyed post-facto approval for execution of work for construction of B/wall and R/wall in Km 1st RD 0-100, 725-775 on Kotli to Shakri Road in Km 2nd RD 75-225, on the same rates, terms and conditions as already approved vide office allotment No. 2296-97, dated 19.10.2014. Similarly, on 26.02.2018 post-facto approval was conveyed for construction of 6 meter long scupper in Km 2nd RD 225-275, RD 425-450 and construction of B/wall in Km 1st RD 725--775 Km 2nd RD 950-1000 and Km 3rd RD 825-850 on Kotli to Shakari Road 225-300 and then an approval was conveyed for construction of B/wall in Km 1st RD 225-300 on Kotli to Shakari Road on 07.07.2017.
4. The petitioner submits that although he has executed all these works but the payment due to him for successful execution of the aforesaid works has not been made to him till date. The respondent No. 4 has admitted the claim of the petitioner and vide his communication dated 17.07.2020 had requested respondent No. 3-Superintending Engineer, PWD (R&B) Udhampur for allocation and sanction of an amount of Rs. 53.03 lacs to enable the respondents to settle pending claims of the contractor. It appears that the respondent No. 5 again allotted restoration of works to the petitioner vide allotment order No. PWD/R&B/M/2020-21/284-287, dated 05.06.2020 but subsequently vide communication dated 11.06.2020, there were handed over to PMGSY Division, Mahore for up gradation.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though he has successfully executed all the works allotted to him to the entire satisfaction of the respondents but the respondents, despite admitting their liability to make payments have not released amount due to him till date.
6. The respondents in their objections submitted that the petitioner has raised a belated claim of Rs. 23.19 lakh and, therefore, the same is required to be rejected. The respondents have not denied the execution of the aforesaid work by the petitioner. It is also admitted by the respondents in their objections that there was balance payment of Rs. 10,01,017 in respect of the following works; the details of which are given in para 5 which reads as under:-
(2) Construction of 6.00 mtr long scupper in Km 2nd RD 425-450 & construction of B/wall in Km 3rd 825-850 on Kotli to Shakari road, where the original allotted amount was Rs.6,39,481/- and thereafter
The lack of administrative approval and technical sanction for the works does not absolve the respondents from their liability to pay for the executed works, especially when the liability is admitted....
A contractor's entitlement to payment for executed works cannot be denied based on alleged lack of administrative approval when such works were accepted, confirming the principle of accountability in....
Funds cannot be withheld due to procedural lapses by the respondents once the work has been satisfactorily completed.
Delay and laches cannot be invoked by the government to deny an admitted claim for payment, emphasizing the need for timely compensation to contractors.
Execution of public works requires necessary approvals; denial of payment due to procedural errors is not tenable when works are executed.
Contractual obligations dictate that the petitioner must adhere to timelines, and failure to obtain necessary approvals does not exempt him from liability or justify his claims for completed works.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
