Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
M A CHOWDHARY
Kirpal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir, Department of Disaster Management – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contractor executed road restoration; liability admitted pending. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. pwd admits claim; sdrf funds via local authorities. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. petitioner claims interest; respondents allege delay laches. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. recurring cause negates delay for admitted dues. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. mandamus for payment release with conditional interest. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
M A CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Petitioner claiming to be regist ered as ‘A’ Class contractor asserts that he was allotted a contract for the restoration of damaged Sidhra-Surinsar-Mansar Road from 6 km to 21 km with approach road to Surinsar Lake with an estimated cost of an amount of Rs.25.50 lakhs and for construction of the road 2 km from Kana Chargal to Mela at an estimated cost of Rs.4.50 lakh by the respondent-PW(R&B) Construction Division-II, Jammu in September 2014.
2. Petitioner has further pleaded that after allotment of the contract, the petitioner deployed his men and machinery at the site and commenced the work on war footing and completed the same within a short span of less than two months; that on completion of the allotted restoration work, the District Development Commissioner, Jamm
Admitted claims for executed restoration works under disaster funds attract recurring cause of action via departmental acknowledgments; delay and laches no bar; courts direct release with interest on....
Delay and laches cannot be invoked by the government to deny an admitted claim for payment, emphasizing the need for timely compensation to contractors.
Contract law requires that any claimed losses be substantiated with proof and processed according to natural justice.
The court emphasized the importance of allowing the petitioner to seek an appropriate decision through a fresh representation before the relevant authority.
Point of Law : Respondents have made the petitioner to execute the work out of his own funds, it is their bounden duty to reimburse the petitioner at the earliest, that too with interest.
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
