IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

Case No: LPA No. 60/2025

CM No. 1830/2025

Reserved on: 11.12.2025

Pronounced on:18.12.2025

Uploaded on: 18.12.2025

Whether the operative part or full

Judgment is pronounced : Full

1. Union Territory of Jammu &

Kashmir through Commissioner/ Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Civil Sectt.

Jammu/Srinagar.

2. Director, Urban Local Bodies,

Jammu.

3. Chief Executive Officer,

Municipal Council, Poonch

4. Executive Engineer,

Urban Local Bodies Division-1.

5. President/Administrator, Municipal Council, Poonch.

…Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

Through: Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA

v/s

1. Renu Balla (Legal Heir) W/O Lt.

Shri Ram Rattan, R/O H.No. 111, Ward No. 8, Khorhinaar, Tehsil

Haveli, District Poonch.

2. Sanjeev Rishi S/O Shri Ram

Parkesh, R/O H.No. 31(B), Sheesh Mahal, Tehsil Haveli, District

Poonch.

3. Ranjeet Singh, S/O S.Mohinder

Singh, R/O Village Kassalian, Ajote,

Tehsil Haveli, District Poonch.

4. Gurcharan Singh, S/O Kehar Singh, R/O Ward No.2,, H.No.272, KIamsar Tehsil Haveli, District Poonch.

(Respondents Through: M r . Ashish Sharma, Advocate

5. District Development Commissioner, Poonch (Proforma Respondent)

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.

JUDGMENT

PER OSWAL-J

1. Impugned in the present intra-court appeal is the judgment dated

27.12.2022 passed by the learned writ Court in WP(C) No. 2456/2021, titled „Ram Rattan and Others v. Union Territory of J&K and Others’, whereby the learned writ Court disposed of the writ petition preferred by the respondents-writ petitioners, in terms of following directions:

“06. Accordingly, the respondents shall consider effectively the release of the balance amount of Rs.44.48 lacs to the petitioners as and when the said amount is made available by respondent No.2-Director, Urban Local Bodies, Jammu, who shall without any further delay and preferably within eight weeks from today make the funds available to respondent no.4 for onward payment to the petitioners whereupon respondent no.4 shall pay the said amount to the petitioners within four weeks along with an interest @6% per annum from the date the petitioners became entitled to the said amount till the date of its actual payment, in accordance with rules and regulations applicable and unless there is no other legal impediment thereto.”

2. The appellants have assailed the judgment of the learned writ Court on the ground that the writ petition was decided by the learned writ Court only on the basis of the response filed by the proforma respondent (District Development Commissioner, Poonch) and without affording sufficient opportunity to the appellants to project their stand. It is also contended by the appellants that they had not accorded approval to the additional expenditure for an amount of ₹44.48 lacs and further that communication dated 14.08.2021 issued by the proforma respondent was responded to in terms of communication dated 31.08.2021, whereby the appellants disowned the said liability, but this communication was not placed on record by the proforma respondent.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record meticulously.

4. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the respondents-writ petitioners filed a writ petition against the appellants and the proforma respondent, seeking a command to release an amount of ₹44.48 lacs along with interest at 18% per annum from the date it became due, following the completion of the works entrusted to them. This relief was sought on the ground that the appellants and the proforma respondent had entrusted various works to the petitioners, which were required to be completed within a stipulated period.

5. The initial estimated cost of the works was ₹44.35 lacs, which subsequently escalated to ₹88.83 lacs, necessitating and receiving post-facto approval. Out of this total cost of ₹88.83 lacs, the appellants paid ₹44.35 lacs to the respondents. To recover the remaining