Pranjal Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Other — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Pranjal Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Other — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the authorities concerned to make payment to the petitioner as recorded in the office order dated 06.03.2025 (special LOC of Rs.41.50 lacs) within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order; writ petition disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue upon the respondents to release the amount of various job works undertaken by the petitioner on the direction of the respondent/department, completed to the satisfaction of the respondent concerned, with the bill never disputed. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The Court was in consonance with the learned counsel for the petitioner's prayer regarding the time period, since the work was executed way back in the year 2022 and admittedly not even a single penny has been paid to the petitioner.

Key takeaways

The authorities concerned were directed to make the payment to the petitioner, as recorded in the office order dated 06.03.2025 (supra), within a period of four months from receipt of certified copy of the order, curtailing the eight-month period sought by the respondents.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Kuldeep Tiwari, J., oral) — CWP-3927-2025, decided 26.03.2025. Petitioner, who executed various job works for the Haryana respondents in 2022 (about 97 petty bills, never disputed but wholly unpaid despite representations and a legal notice dated 04.12.2024, Annexure P-99), sought a mandamus under Article 226 for release of dues. At notice of motion (order dated 13.02.2025) respondent No.3 was directed to decide the legal notice within 15 days by a speaking order. In compliance, a compliance report dated 17.03.2025 (affidavit of Balvinder Nain, Executive Engineer, PHE Division No.3, Rohtak) placed on record office order dated 06.03.2025 (Annexure R-1) accepting the claim, recording that a special LOC of Rs.41.50 lacs had been demanded (letter no. 1014-15 dated 06-03-2025) with payment envisaged within eight months owing to paucity of funds. Counsel's sole residual grievance was the time period. Since the work was done in 2022 and not even a single penny had been paid, the Court directed payment as recorded in the office order within four months of receipt of certified copy, and disposed of the writ petition.

CWP-3927-2025 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(286) CWP-3927-2025 Date of Decision : 26.03.2025

Pranjal Ku m ar …Petitioner

Ve r sus

State of Ha r yana and others ...Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present: Mr. D.K. Tuteja, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, DAG, H a ryana. ****

KULDEEP TIWARI , J.(ORAL)

Through the instant writ petit i on, cast under Article 226 of t he Constitutio n of India, a prayer is made for issuance of a mandamus, upon t he respondent s , to release the amount of var i ous job works undertaken by t he petitioner o n the direction of the res p ondent/department, which were completed t o the satisfaction of the respon d ent concerned, and the bill rai s ed by the petit i oner was never disputed.

Learned counsel for the petit i oner submits that despite vari o us representati o ns and reminders, the petty bi l ls amount, around 97 in numb e rs, was never p aid. It was submitted that not e v en a single penny has been pai d to the petition e r till date.

At the time of issuance of noti c e of motion in the instant petiti o n, vide order d ated 13.02.2025, this Court, h a d passed the hereinafter extrac t ed MANPREET SINGH 2025.03.28 18:13 order upon t he instant writ petition :- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-3927-2025 2

“The main grievance which propelled the present petitioner to approac h this Court by casting inst a nt petition under Article 2 2 6 of the Constitution of India , is the indolent and lackad a isical approach of the respondents authority concerned, in n ot deciding his legal notice da t ed 04.12.2024 (Annexure P - 99). Notice of motion.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, D AG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of all the respond e nts, and waives service. Adjourned to 26.03.202 5 . The competent authori t y amongst the respondents, i.e. respondent no.3, is dire c ted to make its all endeavour s to take final decision on t he legal notice dated 04.12.2 0 24 (Annexure P-99), within a period of 15 days from today, by passing a speaking ord e r, and a copy of the decision, so taken, shall be placed o n record, positively, on or be fo re the next date of hearing.

In case the compliance of the aforesaid direction is n ot made, respondent n o .3, shall cause his perso n al appearance before this Court made on the next date of hearing.”

In deference to the directions (supra), issued by this Court, t he compliance report dated 17.03.2025, by w ay of affidavit of Mr. Balvin d er Nain, Exec u tive Engineer, PHE, Division N o.3, Rohtak, respondent No.4, h as been filed o n behalf of the respondents No.1 to 7, which is attached with t he case file. 5. The compliance report (supra ) , voice about passing of an of f ice order dated 06.03.2025 (Annexure R-1), w hich speaks that the bill raised by the petitio n er has been processed, and s p ecial LOC of Rs.41.50 lacs, for making pa y ment to the petitioner vide l e tter dated 06.03.2025, has b e en MANPREET SINGH demanded b y the office concerned, and t h e payment will be made withi n a 2025.03.28 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-3927-2025 3

period of eight months. The relevant extract of the office order (supra) , is extracted h e reinafter :-

“Whereas, the petitioner namely Sh. Pranjal Kumar, h as filed CWP No. 3927 of 2025 before the Hon'ble H i gh Court with the p r ayer that the representat i on (Annexure-P. 99) has n ot been decided by the autho r ity concerned.

Whereas, the above sai d Civil Writ Petition came up f or hearing on 13.02.2025 and the Hon'ble High Court h as passed the Interim dire c tions vide order dated 13.02.20 2 5, to the respondents and a djourned the case for 26.03.20 2 5. Operative part of this or d er is reproduced as under:-

5. “The Competent Aut h ority amongst the respondent s is directed to make endea v or to take a final decision on the representation (Annexu r e-P-99), within a period of 02 weeks from today, and, a copy of the decision so ta k en, shall be placed on reco r d positively on or before the next date of hearing.

6. In case, compliance of the aforesaid direction is n ot made, the respondent no. 2 shall cause his perso n al appearance before this c ourt on the next date of hearing . ” In view of the above and in compliance of Inte r im directions dated 13.02. 2 025 given by this Hon’ble Co u rt, claim of the petitione r projected in the representat i on (Annexure-P-99) has b e en considered at length and is hereby accepted and th e payment of bill submitted by the petitioner could not be m ade due to the paucity of fund s . It is submitted that a sp e cial LOC of Rs.41.50 Lacs f or making payment to the p etitioner vide letter no: 1014 - 15 dated 06-03-2025 has b een demanded by this office a nd the payment will be mad e within a period of Eight mont h s. Ordered accordingly.”

Learned counsel for the p e titioner though has shown his MANPREET SINGH 2025.03.28 18:13 I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this satisfaction , with regard to the steps tak e n by the department concerned, order/judgment

CWP-3927-2025 4

however, h e raised his only grievance with r egard to the time period as sou g ht by the resp o ndents, to release the amount.

This Court, is also in conson a nce with the prayer made by t he learned cou n sel for the petitioner, as the w o rk was executed by the petitio n er, way back i n the year 2022, and admittedly , not even a single penny has b e en paid to the p etitioner, therefore, the authori t ies concerned, is directed to m a ke the paymen t to the petitioner, as recorded i n the office order (supra), withi n a period of f our months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of t his order/judg m ent.

Consequently, the instant writ p etition is disposed of.

(KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE

March 26, 2 025 Manpreet

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

MANPREET SINGH 2025.03.28 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment