Hemant Kumar Sayal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Claim of the appellant in the writ petition was that he executed work but payments were not made. This claim was contested on the ground that for the additional work, there was no sanction. Rejecting the stand of the respondent, direction for payment was made by learned Single Judge.

Only contention put forward in this appeal is that payment should have been allowed with interest.

LPA No.299 of 2010

2

Order passed by learned Single Judge is by way of moulding relief having regard to facts and circumstances. It is not the case of the appellant that under the contract the appellant was entitled to interest automatically. If learned Single Judge while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution did not consider it appropriate to go into the question of interest liability, which itself would have required going into disputed questions of fact, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE

¶21

May 10, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE

Hemant Kumar Sayal v. State of Punjab and Ors.