Execution of public works requires necessary approvals; denial of payment due to procedural errors is not tenable when works are executed.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition (amended in terms of order dated 27.12.2023) for directing the respondents to release the payment of Rs.55 lacs along with interest in favour of the petitioner on account of execution of works regarding repair / renovation of SDPO's office / Police Station Chara e Sharief including electrification, repair / renovation of SDPO building as well as CC Chains Lab, erecting of cables etc.

2. It is stated that the petitioner at the instance of the respondents had executed various works regarding which the approvals for the work done estimates were sought by the respondent No.6 from the respondent No.2. The details of the work done estimates for repairs / renovation works are as under: -
Date of communication 21.12.2019

G) Communication dated 23.12.2019

Communication dated 26.12.2019

D) Communication dated 04.01.2020

D) Communication dated 06.01.2020

3. The petitioner claims to have submitted a representation to the respondent No.2 for the rele4ase of payment in lieu of works executed by him but when the representation did not elicit any response from the respondents, the petitioner filed the present petition. The petitioner has placed on record various communications to substantiate his claim.

4. The respondents have filed the response, stating therein that on examination of writ petition as well as records at PHQ, it was found that no formal contract / agreement was entered into between the Police department and the petitioner for execution of the works against which the payment is being sought by the petitioner and the works in question have been undertaken and executed by the petitioner without proper approval and allotment from the PHQ Jammu and Kashmir. On this ground only, the respondents are disputing the claim of the petitioner and objecting the writ petition.

5. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit, stating therein, that earlier also the petitioner had executed other works for which payments were released in favour of the petitioner. Payment order dated 23rd March, 2018, amounting to Rs.59,34,000/- was issued and after deductions, the amount of Rs.43,96,584/- was passed in favour of the petitioner. Similarly, another amount of Rs.23,3,730/- was also passed in favour of the petitioner.

6. The respondents have placed on record the consideration order dated 9th November, 2024, whereby claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the works were executed without obtaining administrative approval from the PHQ J and K and without technical sanction from the competent authority.

7. Mr. B. A. Bashir, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the respondents have admitted the execution of the works, the petitioner cannot be denied the payment due to him regarding the works executed by him.

8. Per contra, Mr. Mohsin. S. Qadri, learned Sr. AAG has argued that no sanction order was produced for execution of the above mentioned works, as such, the claim of the petitioner cannot be entered and also codal formalities were not followed for getting the works executed, as such the respondents owe no amount to the petitioner.

9. Heard and perused the record.

10. The claim of the petitioner is being opposed by the respondents on the ground that no sanction order was issued in favour of the petitioner and in absence of work order(s) which is necessary for execution of public works, the payments cannot be released in favour of the petitioner. It is worthwhile to mention here that the respondents have