Back
SINDHU SHARMA
Mukesh Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of J&K – Respondent
JUDGEMENT
1. The petitioner, who is "A" Class Government contractor by profession, claims to have executed the construction work which was allotted to him after participating in the tendering process issued by the respondents. That pursuant to work order, the petitioner has executed the construction of road works of improvement/ restoration of Rohi Minor breached at RD 900-1200M by way of plugging at various places, plugging of leakage between RD 7000-7100 M of D-9 by way of concreting and restoration of damages/plugging of leakage and cuts of Katyal Minor of D-10A RD 2300-2600M.
2. The Superintending Engineer, Hydraulic Circle, Jammu in reference to the letter No. JID/II/2320 dated 11.12.2019 vide his communication dated 13.12.2019 accorded sanction/approval for execution of the aforesaid work.
3. The said work was executed and completed by the petitioner well within time and up to the satisfaction of the respondents, however, an amount to the tune of Rs. 10,58000/- is to be paid to the petitioner for the execution of the aforementioned work. The respondents were avoiding the payment to the petitioner on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, on 05.03.2021 the petitioner served a lega
A contractor's entitlement to payment for executed works cannot be denied based on alleged lack of administrative approval when such works were accepted, confirming the principle of accountability in....
Contractors are entitled to payment for work performed in good faith, regardless of the absence of formal Administrative approval for excess work.
Contractual payments must not be unduly delayed by the state without valid justification.
Delay and laches cannot be invoked by the government to deny an admitted claim for payment, emphasizing the need for timely compensation to contractors.
Contractors executing government work are entitled to payment based on the belief of proper authorization, and the State must act justly in fulfilling its contractual obligations.
The court upheld the contractor's right to receive due payments for completed works, emphasizing the necessity for timely payment as acknowledged by the Respondents under Article 226.
Contractual compliance verification is essential for ensuring timely payment to contractors, as established in Article 226 of the Constitution.
A writ of mandamus can be issued to enforce payment of dues when work under contract is completed satisfactorily and unpaid despite confirmed completion.
The court held that cancellation of a tender cannot disrupt the obligation to pay for work completed, establishing principles of equity and promissory estoppel in administrative actions.
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
