The High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact in contractual matters with the State and its instrumentalities.

JUDGMENT :

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present petition was taken up for final disposal.

2. Heard. Admit.

3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to release the bill amounting to Rs. 40.71 lacs in favour of petitioner on account of execution of construction of two fountains at Hyderpora Crossing, Srinagar. It is the case of the petitioner, the sum due to the petitioner is an admitted liability and the respondents have no reasonable ground or any valid justification to withhold the same and withholding the same amounts to arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

4. The brief case of the petitioner is that he is a Government approved fountain contractor of the respondent corporation, and in the year, 2017 on the direction of Respondent No. 2 who had in turn been directed by the then Chief Minister of the State for beautification of the IG road, the petitioner was allotted the work of construction of two fountains at Hyderpora Crossing, vide Order dated 21.10.2017. A formal approval of the work was granted by Respondent No. 1, vide order dated 12.10.2017. Soon after the completion of allotted work, the petitioner submitted his bills amounting to Rs. 40.71 lacs which were acknowledged and admitted by the respondent corporation and to this effect respondents recommended the same to the government for release of an admitted amount of Rs. 40.71 lacs in favour of the petitioner.

5. The specific stand of the petitioner is that despite the admitted liability, the respondents as on date, on one pretext or other have not released the admitted amount in favour of petitioner. Despite repeated requests to respondents for release of the bill, the respondents till date have not released the admitted amount, which is unjust and unreasonable on part of.

6. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondents have admitted the liability of petitioner, therefore, the respondents have neither any justification nor any reasonable ground to withhold the due payment of Rs. 40.71. The withholding of due payment of the petitioner on the part of respondents is an arbitrary exercise of power and authority.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO 5

7. Objections stand filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 to 5 by Mr. Moomin Khan, who represents the Srinagar Municipal Corporation, however, there is no representation on behalf of Respondent No. 1.

8. The stand taken by the Respondent No. 2 to 5 is that the present petition raises disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has taken a specific stand that no administrative approval for the construction of the work in question has ever been sanctioned by the competent authority. He has further submitted that no tendering process has been initiated for the construction of the fountains nor any formal allotment order/administrative approval was issued in favour of the petitioner by the respondent corporation.

10. The respondents have strongly refuted the claim of the petitioner that he was ever allotted any work for construction of fountains. Learned counsel further submitted that no bills for the said work have ever been processed by the respondents nor the same have ever been submitted by the petitioner with the respondent corporation.

11. The respondents have taken a specific stand that the aforesaid construction work was never allotted by the competent authority to the petitioner and thus, there is no question of release of admitted liability as claimed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. Learned counsel, accordingly, has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition in absence of any formal allotment order or administrative approval/initiation of tendering process.

12. The respondents have further argued that the petitioner has