Disposed

M/S Zaf Associates Th.Its Proprietor v. Union Territory of J and K (Health and Medical Education) and Others

J&K HC7 Sept 2026WP(C)/2165/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir hearing a writ petition regarding non-payment for supplied goods. The court disposed of the petition at admission by directing the respondents to treat the petition as a representation for clearance of pending dues within two months after passing a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Petition treated as representation; respondents directed to consider claim for pending payment and pass speaking order within two months.

M/S Zaf Associates Th.Its Proprietor Vs Union… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | J&K HC (2026)

¶1

Serial No.28 REGULAR CAUSE LIST

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

¶3

WP(C) 2165/2026 CM(5879/2026)

¶4

M/S ZAF ASSOCIATES TH.ITS PROPRIETOR

¶5

…Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through: Mr. Mian Tufail, Advocate.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K ...Respondent(s) (HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION) AND OTHERS

¶9

Through:

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

¶12

ORDER

¶13

07.09.2026

¶14

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has supplied a steam sterilizer, horizontal, rectangular, double door, fully automatic autoclave at GMC Baramulla pursuant to Supply Order dated 29.08.2020.

¶15

It is further submitted that, owing to the inaction of the respondents, the said instrument could not be installed due to non-availability of suitable space. Ultimately, the same was installed and commissioned on 23.03.2024, and the installation certificate was duly certified and issued.

¶16

It is further submitted that the respondents constituted a Committee to examine whether the installation was in conformity with the specifications contained in the Supply Order.

¶17

WP(C) 2165/2026 Page 1 of 3

¶18

It is the case of the petitioner that, despite having supplied the material and having commissioned the same after proper installation, and despite the Committee having verified that the installation was in accordance with the Supply Order, the respondents have chosen not to clear the liability of Rs. 11,50,500/-.

¶19

It is submitted that payment is being denied by the respondents on the ground of budgetary allocation, despite the recommendation made by the Director Finance, Medical Education Department, and other connected officers.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant petition may be disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for clearance of the aforesaid pending liability.

¶21

Having examined the case of the petitioner, without putting the matter to notice, the instant petition is taken up at the admission stage and is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat his writ petition as representation which the petitioner, shall lay before the Principal Secretary to the Government, Health and Medical Education Department, who shall consider the case of the petitioner for clearance of the pending payment at GMC Baramulla, after evaluating the claim of

¶22

WP(C) 2165/2026 Page 2 of 3

¶23

the petitioner in accordance with the applicable codal formalities,

¶24

if any.

¶25

The respondent authorities shall ensure that a speaking order is passed on the representation of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is served upon

¶26

them.

¶27

9. Disposed of.

¶28

(Sanjay Parihar) Judge

¶29

SRINAGAR: 07.09.2026 Shaista-PS

¶30

WP(C) 2165/2026

¶31

Page 3 of 3

M/S Zaf Associates Th.Its Proprietor v. Union Territory of J and K (Health and Medical Education) and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Zaf Associates Th.Its Proprietor v. Union Territory of J and K (Health and Medical Education) and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases