SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(J&K) 67

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, J.
M/S Lumber India Corporation - Petitioner
Versus 
Union Territory Of J And K And Kashmir Thorugh Commissioner Cum Secretary To Govt. Toursim Department Civil Secretariate Sraingar - Respondent
WP(C) No. 733 of 2023, CM No. 1730 of 2023, CM No. 5002 of 2024
Decided On : 10-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.Y. Bhat, Sr. Adv., Mr. Hamza Prince , Adv
For the Respondent: Mr. Hakeem Aman Ali, Dy.AG Mr.Waseem Gul, GA

State and instrumentalities cannot withhold admitted dues for executed and accepted works on paucity of funds or privity pleas; violates Article 14; writ maintainable; interest payable for arbitrary delay.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226 - Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 - Sections 15, 16 and 17 - Writ petition seeking release of admitted dues for works executed pursuant to allotment through government facilitator - State and instrumentalities cannot withhold payment arbitrarily after accepting completed works - Plea of lack of privity or paucity of funds untenable post-execution and acceptance - Violation of Article 14 mandates fairness and reasonableness - Writ maintainable against admitted contractual liability - State to act as model litigant - Interest payable for delay, including compound interest at three times bank rate for MSMEs. (Paras 4, 14, 27-31, 41, 49)

(B) Government Contracts - State Liability - Execution and acceptance of work crystallizes payment obligation - Departments and facilitators jointly liable as single entity - Cannot evade on administrative delays, fund shortages or post-facto approvals - Paucity of funds abominable defense after deriving benefit - Administrative accountability for systemic delays. (Paras 26-28, 33-40, 46-47)

Facts of the case:
Registered small scale unit executed construction and renovation works allotted through facilitator for tourism department at tourist village. Works completed per approved specifications, handed over and accepted without objection; partial payment of Rs.34.80 lakhs released, balance admitted dues of Rs.47.47 lakhs withheld since 2017 attributed to non-availability of funds from indenting department despite repeated requests.

Findings of Court:
Respondents directed to release admitted liability of Rs.47.47 lakhs within four weeks from submission of order with petition; failing compliance, petitioner entitled to interest at 6% per annum from due date.

Issues: Maintainability of writ for admitted contractual dues; effect of intermediary role and lack of privity; validity of fund paucity and administrative delay defenses; entitlement to interest on prolonged withholding.

Ratio Decidendi: Withholding admitted dues after work execution and acceptance is arbitrary State action violative of Article 14; instrumentalities constitute single entity with joint liability; technical pleas impermissible post-benefit derivation; State bound by constitutional fairness, cannot unjustly enrich; interest compensatory for deprivation and statutorily mandated for MSMEs.

Result: Writ petition allowed along with connected applications.

Table of Content
1. writ seeks release of admitted work dues. (Para 1 , 2)
2. works allotted via sicop, executed, balance withheld. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. msme act mandates timely payment with interest. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. sicop facilitator; liability with indenting department. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. work execution and partial payment undisputed. (Para 25 , 26)
6. state instrumentalities jointly liable despite privity absence. (Para 27)
7. writ maintainable against arbitrary state withholding. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
8. delay in dues violates article 14 fairness. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
9. paucity of funds no excuse post-execution. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
10. interest compulsory for delayed contractor payments. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 48 , 49)
11. state ensure accountability, timely payment mechanisms. (Para 46 , 47 , 50 , 51)
12. direct admitted dues release within four weeks. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)

JUDGMENT :

WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, J.

Brief Facts

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, inter alia, seeking a direction for release of admitted dues arising out of works duly allotted by the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that the works stood executed in accordance with the approved specifications and to the satisfaction of the competent authorities, yet the admitted amount payable has remained withheld for several years without any justifiable cause.

2. It is averred that despite repeated representations and sustained efforts made by the petitioner for release of its legitimate dues, no effective steps were taken by the respondents, thereby constraining the petitioner to approach this Court.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER;

3. The Learned counsel Mr. Hamza Prince for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions for release of admitted dues arising out of works duly executed by the petitioner pursuant to allotments made by the respondents. It is contended that the petitioner has fulfilled all contractual obligations, and the works in question stand completed in accordance with the approved specifications and to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities.

4. It is further submitted that the inaction on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and unreasonable, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the statutory mandate contained in the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, which obligates timely payment along with interest in case of delay.

5. It is submitted that M/s Lumber India Corporation is a registered Small Scale Industrial Unit engaged in the construction of new buildings, renovation of old structures, and manufacture of joinery items/furniture and has undertaken works for various Government Departments and its performance, including quality of construction and supply of goods, has consistently been found satisfactory.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner unit has been executing construction works and supplying joinery/furniture items and materials to Government Departments and Government-owned Corporations through the Jammu and Kashmir Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation.

7. It is submitted that respondent No. 3, vide communication dated 15.12.2014, requested SICOP to furnish a pro-forma bill for construction of a hut at Tourist Village Cheshma Shahi. In response thereto, the Project Engineer, SICOP, vide communication dated 06.01.2015, furnished a detailed cost estimate with a request for acceptance of the offer and release of funds for execution of the work.

8. It is further submitted that the Project Engineer, SICOP, vide communication dated 16.01.2015, authorized the petitioner unit to undertake construction of a 2 BHK Hut (Duplex) at Tourist Village Cheshma Shahi, with a direction to complete the work expeditiously in accordan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top