IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.6375 of 2023 Decided on: 23.11.2023 Naim Akhtar ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others f...Respondents Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner: Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with oMr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Sidharth Jalta, C Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocates General.

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (Oral)

The petitioner is a Class-A contractor for buildings and roads to the Public Works Department. He was awarded on 21.09.2006 the following work under a letter of award Annexure P-1:

“C/O Samon to Tihri road Km 0/00 to 8/870 under PMGSY package no. HP-08-23 for the year 2006-07 (SH :-F/C 5/7 mtr wide cross drainage work essential parapets, Km Stone, RS stone and informatory sign board with logo km 0/00 to 8/870) Panchyat connectivity.”

2. The stipulated time for completion of the work was 365 days and the work was to start on 07.10.2006 and get completed by 06.10.2007.

3. However, there were certain hindrances such as lack of approval under the Forest Conservation Act for carrying out the said work which approval came on 23.03.2017. Thereafter, felling of trees had to be done which went on from 18.04.2018 to 22.04.2018, and aftuer certain extension were granted by the respondents too the petitioner, the work was completed on

05.07.20C20.

4. There was thus price escalation because of which the amount due to the petitioner went up to Rs.1,17,60,915/-.

5. The Superintending Engineer, 1^st Circle, HP. PWD, Mandi, recommended release of this amount towards the Price Escalation Bill to the petitioner, but the said amount is not being released in spite of reminders dt. 12.05.2023 and 12.06.2023 given by the petitioner to the Executive Engineer, Sunder Nagar Division, HP. PWD, Sunder Nagar.

6. The petitioner has therefore, approached this Court for direction to the respondents to make payment of this amount towards Price Escalation Bill alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

7. Reply was filed by the respondents without disputing the facts alleged by the petitioner, including approval granted by the Superintending Engineer, 1^st Circle, HP. PWD, Mandi on 21.10.2022 for payment of the above amount to the petitioner towards Price Escalation bill. It is, however, contended that all payments against the executed work have been released to the contractor on timely basis; that the bill of price variation would be beyond the agreemenut and not part of project and funds had to be arranged from othe State Government for the said purpose. It is stated thCat the project in question was a Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) project, but the funding from the Central Agency has already been exhausted, and the said money payable to the petitioner is to be arranged from the State Authority from the maintenance fund, and because of paucity of funds the same cannot be paid. It was denied that the payment is being withheld illegally and that correspondence is being made with the competent authority to arrange the fund.

8. Having regard to the stand taken by the respondents and particularly since the factum of the petitioner executing the work is not in dispute, and also the fact that the Superintending Engineer, 1^st Circle, HP. PWD, Mandi, had already approved the release of the amount of Rs.1,17,60,915/- towards the Price Escalation Bill/claim of the petitioner, the respondents cannot delay the payment indefinitely raising untenable pleas, particularly since the work had been completed by the petitioner way back in July 2020 and more than three years have elapsed since the said date, and the payment of the money due to the petitioner has not been released.

9. Accordinugly, since there are no disputed questions of fact regarding thoe liability of the respondents to meet such claim of the petitiC