Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Ghulam Mohi-Ud-Din Bhat vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 2 August, 2021
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU& KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT
SRINAGAR
WP (C) No. 1443/2021
CM No. 4914/2021
Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Bhat
.... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ahmad Javaid, Advocate
v.
UT of J&K and others
.... Respondents
Through: Mr. Irfan Andleeb, Dy. A. G.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE.
ORDER
02.08.2021
1. Petitioner in the instant writ petition implores for the following reliefs:
Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to release the withheld liability / payment i.e.Rs.11,13,717/- and Rs.3,88,115 in favour of the partitioner without any further delay.
Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to implement their own communications issued by respondent no. 3 and 4 and release the withheld amount without any further delay.
2. The aforesaid reliefs are being sought on the premise that the petitioner, a civil contractor by profession,was allotted work vide allotment order No.PHE/Allot/5750-53 dated 10.10.2014,that he undertook and completed. It is being stated that during the execution of the aforesaid works,the petitioner was allotted another work in the name of M/s Mehboob Group of Engineers, vide allotment order dated 15.11.2018. The said work is stated to have also been completed by the petitioner within the stipulated period. It is being next stated that the petitioner after completion of works in question submitted 2 measurement books before the respondents duly verified and checked by them assuring the petitioner for release of payments due to him for the works executed.
3. According to the petitioner, the respondents, despite having admitted the execution of the works in question, did not release the payment due to the petitioner without any lawful justification.
4. It is being stated that though various communications includingcommunications dated 18.01.2020 and 08.06.2020 were addressedinter se departments in regard to release of withheld payment of the petitioner, yet the paymentsdue to the petitioner were not released in his favour.
5. It is lastly stated by the petitioner that a representation for release of the payments was also submitted before the respondents claiming total amount of Rs.11,13,717/- and Rs.3,88,115 and the said representation also did not yield any results.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner,while making submissions in line with the contentionsraised in the instant writ petition, prays for disposal of this writ petitionat this stage with a direction to the respondents to accord consideration to the claim of the petitioner for release of withheld payment of Rs.11,13,717/- and Rs.3,88,115 within some stipulated period.
7. Mr. Irfan Andleeb, learned Deputy Advocate General, representing the Respondent-Department, on asking of the Court, has entered appearance and accepted notice on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Irfan Andleeb in principle did notoppose the disposal of the writ petition at this stage, however, would contend that the claim of the petitioner as lodged in the writ petition 3 quawithheld payments would be considered on its own merits and in accordance with the rules and regulations occupying the field.
8. Having regard to the nature of controversy in the writ petition and innocuous relief sought for by learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the submissions of learnedcounsel for the respondents, it would be futile to keep this writ petition pending on board, accordingly, the instant writ petition is taken up for final disposal without formally admitting it to hearing and the writ petition is disposed of as follows:
"The respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner claimed to have been submitted by him for release of withheld payment of Rs.11,13,717/- and Rs.3,88,115 for the works executed, of course, on its own merits and in accordance with law, rules and regulations occupying the field within a period of eight weeks from the date of service of this order upon them uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court.
It ismade clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion in respect of the claim of the petitioner as lodged in the writ petition."
9. Disposed of as above along with connected CM.
(JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 02.08.2021 TASADUQ SAB:
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.