Ms Sanjeev Kumar Goyal Contractor Vs the State of Punjab and Others

In deference to the hereinafter extracted order passed by this Court on 03.03.2025, today the respondent No.4- Mr. Kamaljeet Singh Brar, Executive Engineer, Provisional Division, PWD (B&R), Mansa, has caused personal appearance before this Court, and, has also placed on record the speaking order dated 11.04.2025, as passed on the petitioner’s representation(s).

¶14

“1. The gravamen of the lis, as encapsulated in this writ petition, is centered upon the indolent and lackadaisical approach of the authority(ies) concerned inasmuch as despite repeated requests and lapse of considerable time, neither the payment of the bill(s) has been made to the petitioner, nor any decision has been made on petitioner’s representations, which are enclosed as Annexures P-4 and P-5 in this writ petition.

¶15

2. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that, at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied in case a direction is passed upon the respondent(s) concerned to decide the representations (supra) in a time bound

¶16

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.02 09:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-5903-2025

2

manner.

3. Notice of motion.

¶21

4. Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, D.A.G., Punjab, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. He submits that, there is no objection in case a direction is passed upon the respondent(s) concerned to decide the representations (supra) in a time bound manner.

¶22

5. Without evincing any opinion as regards the merits of this writ petition, or, as regards the bill(s) being admitted/sanctioned, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the competent authority, amongst the respondents, to make final decision on the representations (supra) within six weeks from today, and, in case any payment is found outstanding, the same shall forthwith be released in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, a copy of the decision so taken, shall be placed on record on the subsequent date of hearing.

¶23

6. It is made clear that, in case of non-compliance of the direction (supra), the competent authority shall cause personal appearance before this Court on the subsequent date of hearing.

¶24

7. List on 01.05.2025, in the urgent list.

¶25

8. It is made clear that, on the subsequent date of hearing, no request for adjournment would be entertained on behalf of either side.”

¶26

The speaking order reveals that, major claim of the petitioner has been admitted and the outstanding payment would be made to it after release of the requisite funds from the higher authority. The respondent No.4 has informed this Court that, the outstanding amount would be paid to the petitioner approx. within a month from today.

¶27

In view of the above, since a speaking order has already been passed on the petitioner’s representation(s) and the outstanding amount is also, as informed by the respondent No.4, in the process of being released to the petitioner, therefore, no further direction is required to be passed.

¶28

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.02 09:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶29

3

¶30

CWP-5903-2025

¶31

Hence, the instant writ petition is closed. However, in case, the petitioner has any grievance with regard to inadequate payment or non payment, it is at liberty to take the apposite legal recourse for redressal thereof.

¶32

4. Disposed of accordingly.

¶33

May 01, 2025	(KU	LDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE
devinder
Whether speaking/reasoned	:	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	:	Yes/No

¶34

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.02 09:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Ms Sanjeev Kumar Goyal Contractor v. the State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Sanjeev Kumar Goyal Contractor v. the State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Panj Daria Vigilant Media Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Kamal through His Mother Vs Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Another

Manjeet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Inderpreet Singh Manchanda and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

M/S Shubhdeep Motors Vs State of Punjab and Others