HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR
M/S FARSANG TECHNOID THROUGH ITS GROUP LEADER MALIK SHAFAYAR SHAFI – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER SECRETARY AND ORS. (JAL SHAKTI DEPARTMENT/PHE) – Respondent
WP(C)/1753/2021
Regular Cause list
Serial No. 7
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP (C) 1753/2021
CM (5837/2021)
M/S Farsang Technoid
… Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. M. A. Beigh, Advocate
V/s
Commissioner Secretary and others
Through: Mr. Irfan Andleeb, AAG
… Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
O R D E R
09-05-2022
01.
The Executive Engineer, PHE Division, Bijbehara, issued an
E-NIT under No. 24/PHED/Bijbehara of 2019-20 dated 3rd
December, 2019, inviting bids from different Contractors/Executing
Agencies for execution of work of “construction of chain link
fencing around structures for water supply scheme Shoul Sarsona”.
The petitioner also participated in the process and was allotted the
said work vide allotment letter No. PHB/7460-62 dated 1st January,
2020. A formal agreement with regard to the execution of subject
work was executed between the petitioner and the answering
respondents. It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner
has executed the work allotted to him to the satisfaction of the
respondents.
02.
On successful completion of the work, the petitioner
submitted his bills for payment to the office of Executive
NISSAR A BHAT
2022.05.11 12:29
WP (C) 1753/2021
Page 2 of 4
Engineer, PHE Division, Bijbehara. The bills for an amount of
Rs. 36,23,300/- were passed after proper check at the Divisional
Office of the respondents. It is submitted that the Commissioner
Secretary to the Government, Jal Shakti Department vide his
order no. 49 JK (JSD) of 2021 dated 25.2.2021 has directed the
respondents to constitute a committee for physical verification of
all the schemes/works executed under languishing projects where
cost escalation is beyond 15% of tender cost. Accordingly, the
committee was constituted. It is submitted that since the work
allotted to the petitioner comes under the languishing projects, as
such there is requirement of a physical verification report to be
issued by the constituted committee. The said committee after
spot verification has submitted its report/observations to the
government. It is submitted that the response of the government
regarding the release of the payment of the petitioner is still
awaited and as and when the government will issue orders for
release of the payment, the same will be released in accordance
with rules to the petitioner.
03.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record, I am of the considered opinion that in view of the
stand of the respondents taken in their reply, this petition is liable to
be allowed. There is no dispute that the petitioner has executed the
allotted work to the satisfaction of the respondents; even the bills for
payment submitted by the petitioner are not disputed. However, the
payment has been withheld on the ground that pursuant to the
WP (C) 1753/2021
Page 3 of 4
directions of the Government in Jal Shakti Department, amongst
others, the work executed by the petitioner was directed to be verified
by a committee constituted by the Government. It has also come on
record that the said committee has since submitted its report and has
verified the work executed by the petitioner. If that being the position,
there is no reason or justification with the respondents to deny the
legitimate payment due to the petitioner on account of execution of
work allotted to him.
04.
In view of the admission with regard to the execution of the
work and the entitlement of the petitioner for the payment on account
of such execution, there remains nothing in this writ petition for
further adjudication. This Court has time and again reiterated that
once work is executed by a Contractor or Executing Agency to
the satisfaction of the respondents and the bills submitted by
such Contractors or Executing Agencies are passed, the payment
cannot be denied on account of paucit