Funds cannot be withheld due to procedural lapses by the respondents once the work has been satisfactorily completed.

1. The petitioner has sought a direction upon the respondents to release an amount of Rs.38 lacs along with interest in his favour on account of the cost of work executed by him through his firm M/s Wali Construction Works. The petitioner has also sought compensation in the amount of Rs.50 lacs from the respondents.

2. As per the case of petitioner, in the year 2020 the respondents were under public pressure to restore the road from 'Km 2nd L021 to Champal' in district Doda as the said road had been completely damaged due to heavy rain and snowfall during the months of December, 2018 to March, 2019. It has been submitted that the respondents approached the petitioner for execution of aforesaid work and it was decided that the petitioner shall execute said work at the rate of Rs.107.44 / cum. Thus, the total estimate for the said work to be executed came to be assessed at Rs.38 lacs. It has been submitted that in terms of communication dated 30.03.2020 addressed by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3, copy whereof was endorsed to the petitioner, the proprietary concern of the petitioner was engaged as the agency for restoration of the road from 'Km 2nd L021 to Champal' at the rate of Rs.107.44 / cum and the petitioner was directed to restore the road within one month by engaging sufficient men and machinery.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid communication, the petitioner undertook restoration of the road by engaging sufficient men and machinery and restored the road for vehicular traffic. According to the petitioner, the work was executed by him to the entire satisfaction of the respondents as per SDRF norms, where after, detailed estimates were submitted by him to the respondents. The petitioner has placed on record inter se communications between the petitioner and the respondents, which go on to show that funds to the tune of Rs.38 lacs were being sought by the respondents from the competent authorities from time to time.

4. It has been submitted that unnecessary observations and remarks were raised by the respondents as conditions precedent for releasing of amount in favour of the petitioner and despite addressing these remarks, the amount was not released in favour of the petitioner, who was compelled to make a representation to respondent No.1 seeking release of the outstanding amount.

5. According to the petitioner, the funds came to be allocated to respondent No.4 for disbursement to him in the year 2022, but the same could not be released in his favour due to closure of financial year, as a consequence whereof the funds got lapsed. Another reason for not releasing the amount in favour of the petitioner was that the Treasury did not entertain the claim for want of authorization by the competent authority. It is further averred that respondent No.3 vide communication dated 09.01.2023 requested respondent No.2 for re - validation of funds so that the same are released in favour of the petitioner. Even administrative approval was accorded for the work executed by the petitioner in terms of various orders issued by the competent authority on 30.03.2022. However, certain conditions were put in these orders for release of funds in favour of the petitioner - contractor. It has been submitted that after the accord of administrative approval, the funds came to be released vide order dated 13.04.2023 along with bank authorization in favour of the petitioner but due to the conditions put by the respondents for release of funds in favour of the petitioner, the same could not be disbursed in his favour.

6. According to the petitioner, the respondents have withheld the amount due to him without any rhyme or reason, and this action of the respondents has resul