Back
2025 Supreme(J&K) 167
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKHAT SRINAGAR
RAJNESH OSWAL, J.
M/S New G. Q. Constructions – Appellant
Versus
Ut of J&K & OTHERS – Respondent
WP(C) No.1260 of 2022
Decided on : 26-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S. A. Makroo, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Rahil Noor, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ilyas Laway, GA.
The court ruled that disputes arising from contract execution should be resolved through arbitration as stipulated in the contract, and the current writ petition was rendered infructuous due to a related pending case.
Headnote:
(A) Contract Law - Terms of Contract - The petitioner sought to quash an order compelling him to complete construction work and to release unpaid dues of Rs. 15,09,652/- with interest. The petitioner claimed delays were due to external factors and disputes over rates. The respondents contended the petitioner failed to complete work despite reminders. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Arbitration - Dispute Resolution - The contract stipulated that disputes should be referred to an Arbitrator as per Clause 52 of the NIT. The court noted that the matter was rendered infructuous due to a separate writ petition challenging a related order. (Paras 6-9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was contracted for construction work but faced delays attributed to law and order issues and disputes over payment. The respondents withheld payment and threatened to blacklist the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The court found it inappropriate to intervene due to the pendency of a separate writ petition.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the order compelling work completion and the status of unpaid dues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the matter was rendered infructuous due to the separate writ petition, emphasizing the need for proper dispute resolution as per contract terms.
Result: Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner has filed this petition for grant of following reliefs:
I. Writ of Certiorari, for quashing the letter (order impugned) bearing No. PHEDC/522-27 dated 27.04.2022, forming annexure-I to this writ petition.
II. Mandamus, commanding the respondents to release the unpaid amount to the petitioner to the extent of Rs 15,09,652/- (Fifteen lacs Nine Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Two only) on account of execution of the work along with interest at Rs 12% with costs of litigation of Rs 2.00 lacs on account of causing mental agony and inconvenience to the petitioner.
2. It is stated that the petitioner was allotted the work for construction of double storied office building for PHE Division, Chadoora, for an estimated cost of Rs.67,36,000/. The work was to be completed within a period of six months from the date of issuance of allotment order. The petitioner claims to have started the execution of the work but during this process, various impediments/obstructions came to the fore including law and order problem due to intervention of the locals, as result of which there was delay in the execution of the work and the same was attributable to the respondents only. It is stated that the respondents also raised dispute over the rates already settled between the parties and under that pretext, they have withheld the amount due to the petitioner on account of execution of the work. The petitioner claims to have made various representations to the respondents but without any result. It is stated that the petitioner has executed the work to the extent of Rs.60,09,652/, out of which Rs.45.00 lacs have already been released after verification of the work and rest of the amount due to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.15,09,652/ is still outstanding. It is claimed that the petitioner has executed 96% of the work and the remaining work to the extent of Rs.7,26,348/ is still to be executed, which the petitioner is willing to execute on the rates already settled by the parties in terms of allotment order dated 30.01.2021. It is also stated that the respondents instead of releasing the amount in favour of the petitioner, vide order dated 27th April, 2022, which is impugned in this petition, are forcing the petitioner to start the work.
3. The petitioner has impugned order dated 27th April, 2022, inter alia, on the following grounds:
(I) That the petitioner is incapacitated to start the remaining work at the estimated cost of Rs.7,26,348/ but the respondents are compelling him to execute the remaining work at a lower cost/excess work.
(II) That in terms of mandate of condition No.52 of the NIT, the petitioner has already voiced his grievance before the respondents, as such, the Executive Engineer ought to have referred the case and brought it to the notice of the Chief Engineer but he is threatening the petitioner to blacklist him, which is a very serious action on the part of the respondents.
4. The respondents have filed their response stating therein that as per the terms and conditions of e-NIT, the petitioner was supposed to complete the building with second slab and CGI roofing sheets over timber truss within the stipulated time but he miserably failed to complete the said work as per the sanctioned estimate despite repeated reminders issued through phone as well as notices served from time to time by the concerned Sub-Division and Divisional office. It is stated that a final reminder was issued to the petitioner on 27.04.2022 (which is impugned by the petitioner in this petition), in terms of which he was directed to start the work within three days. The petitioner did not bother to execute the work and, accordingly, keeping in view the urgency involved, the matter was taken up with the Superintending Engineer, Hydraulic Circle, Budgam, vide letter No.PHEDC/1137 dated 25.05.2022, who, in turn, conveyed his instructions vide letter No.SE/HYD/CS/BUD/1127-28 dated 27.05.2022, to the extent of inviting fresh tenders for execution of
