The High Court directed the respondents to settle the petitioner's account and release the sum found due within two months, holding there was no justification for withholding payment despite admitted entitlement.
Directions to settle petitioner's account and release dues within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P NO. 115 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 08.01.2009
G. R. Builders & Contractors
...Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
Present : Mr. P. S. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner.
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
Notice of motion.
Mr. G. S. Attariwala, Additional AG, Punjab accepts
notice.
Having regard to the nature of the proposed order, learned State counsel submits that there is no need to file any counter affidavit.
As prayed for by learned counsel for the parties, the main case is taken up for final disposal.
The petitioner is a government contractor, who is stated to have executed the work regarding constructions of D.R. Bridge on Munak to Tohana Road, which was allotted to him vide work order No. 5/23 dated 26.12.2006. Relying upon some correspondence between the petitioner and respondent No. 3,
C.W.P NO. 115 OF 2009
-2-
namely, the Executive Engineer, Drainage Construction Division, Sangrur, the petitioner submits that even according to the respondents, he is entitled to be paid approximately Rs.1.35 crores, after making necessary deductions. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the contents of the letter dated 14.07.2008 (Annexure P-5) addressed by the respondent No.3, wherein it is mentioned that “payment for the work executed by you will be released on receipt of funds as well as in receipt of approval”.
It, thus, appears that the petitioner is undisputedly entitled to be paid certain dues on account of the work relating to construction of D.R Bridge executed by him. The said payment, however, is not being released for one or the other administrative reasons.
In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that whatever amount the petitioner has been found entitled to by the respondents, there is no justification to withhold the payment thereof.
Consequently, the Civil Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to settle the petitioner's account and whatever is found due, to release the same to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
As regards the petitioner's claim for interest, the same cannot be effectively adjudicated upon in these
-3-
C.W.P NO. 115 OF 2009
proceedings and the petitioner would be at liberty to recover the same, if so admissible, as per law.
Disposed of.
JANUARY 08, 2009 shalini
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents were justified in withholding payment due to a government contractor for executed work.
Whether the court could direct immediate settlement and release of the pending dues.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G. R. Builders & Contractors
State of Punjab
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
