Delay and laches cannot be invoked by the government to deny an admitted claim for payment, emphasizing the need for timely compensation to contractors.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner was allotted work for construction of road from “Katali Galla to Una” in District Rajouri from 1^st Km to 5^th Kms. After completion of the said work, liability of the work done by the petitioner was calculated as Rs. 1,05,06,595/- till 31.12.2011 and the road was thereafter handed over to the PMGSY Division, Rajouri for further construction. It is contended that out of the total liability of Rs. 1,05,06,595/- an amount of Rs. 55,06,595 was paid to the petitioner and the balance amount could not be paid on account of the non- availability of funds, as conveyed vide communication dated 12.01.2012 by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1. In the same communication, request was also made for release of the balance amount of Rs. 50.00 lacs so that the work done claim of the contractor could be cleared.

2. The petitioner submitted a representation before the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India and Office of the Hon'ble Prime Minister, New Delhi vide communication dated 07.03.2014 forwarded the said representation of the petitioner dated 28.02.2014 to the Chief Secretary of the erstwhile State of J&K. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 vide communication dated 17.12.2015 requested respondent No. 1 for release of Rs. 22.74 lacs for settling the claim of the petitioner. The communication dated 17.12.2015 was issued pursuant to the report dated 12.12.2015 submitted by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner again submitted representation to the then Minister for Finance and Planning of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, for redressal of his grievance, which in turn was marked to the respondent No.1 for his examination. Thereafter, the Director, Planning PW (R&B) Department requested respondent No. 2 to take immediate appropriate necessary action in the matter under intimation to the department. When no action was taken by the respondents, another representation was submitted by the petitioner to the Advisor to the Governor of erstwhile State of J&K, which was referred to respondent No. 2 for necessary action. The petitioner thereafter sent a Legal Notice to respondent No. 1 for release of funds and making payment to him, but nothing was done, which prompted the petitioner to file the present petition for directing the respondents to release the payment of Rs. 50.00 lacs alongwith interest at the rate of 9% from 31.12.2011 till its disbursal to the petitioner.

3. The respondents have filed the response, stating therein that the present petition has been filed after about 10 years from the accrual of cause of action, as such, the same is required to be dismissed. It is stated that the petitioner was allotted work for the construction of “Katalli Gala to Una road KM 1^st Rd 0 to 165 and Rd 750 to 900‟ by way of earthwork cutting/filling vide respondent No. 4‟s office allotment No. 990-94 dated 03.06.2009 for an amount of Rs. 12.08 lacs, where the period of completion of the work was two months only and supplementary agreement came to be drawn for an amount of Rs. 27.85 lacs vide Superintending Engineer PWD (R&B) Circle Rajouri No. 01 of 05/2010 and also post facto approvals were accorded by Superintending Engineer, PWD (R&B) Circle Rajouri for an amount of Rs. 31.62 lacs and 13.13 lacs for construction of above said road upto KM 4^th RD 125 by way of earthwork in cutting as reported vide respondent 4‟s communication dated 28.11.2015. It is stated that the balance payment of the contractor by way of earthwork is 170170 CUM, the cost of which comes to Rs. 22.74 lacs and is payable to the petitioner.

4. Mr. Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is admission on the part of the respondents with regard to the execution of the aforesaid work allotted to the petitioner by the respondents and the whole payment could not be made to the petitioner, as the funds were not available.

5. Per contra, Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG has objected to the claim of the petitioner only