Contractor completed NH protection work but full payment was withheld for want of fund sanction. The court directed respondent authorities to take steps to ensure earliest allocation of funds and to pay outstanding dues without delay once funds are released.
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.
| Sl. No |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| WPMS No. 87 of 2023 with WPMS No. 88 of 2023 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. Pramod Bailwal, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore they are being heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (M/ S) No. 87 of 2023 alone are being considered and discussed. 4. Petitioner is a partnership firm, which is engaged in Civil Construction work and is registered as Class-A contractor with State Public Works Department. According to petitioner, contract for construction of protection work in ’Km. 71 (4-6), (6-8) on NH-123 (507) under FDR 201819’ was granted to him by the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Public Works Department Barkot, District Uttarkashi, and he completed the said work to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities, however, full payment has not been released to him so far. The relief claimed by petitioner in this writ petition is as follows: - “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents authorities to make the due payment of Rs. 4,90,819.95/ - to the petitioner along with the interest for the work which has already been completed.” |
| 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by |
|---|
| Rajendra Kumar, Assistant Engineer, NH Division, Public Works Department, Barkot, District Uttarkashi. Para 6 of the said counter affidavit is extracted below: - “6. That the contents of paragraph nos. 6 to 16 of the writ petition are admitted to the extent of matters of record. Rest of the averments are not admitted and in reply it is submitted that in the year 2018-19, under the F.D.R. Fund, against the total calculated cost of work amounting Rs. 1035.88 lakhs, only an amount of Rs. 25.01 lakhs was sanctioned and allocated. Under the aforesaid sanctioned fund, the contract in question was not included. In the year 2018-19, against the work executed under the F.D.R. Fund, the remaining sanction amount of Rs. 151.30 lakhs has yet not been received. |
| It is submitted that in this regard, from Division Level vide Letter No. 978 dated |
| 07.09.2019, Letter No. 1271 dated |
| 24.09.2021, Letter No. 1327 dated |
| 12.10.2021, Letter No. 558 dated |
| 21.05.2022 and Letter No. 1351 dated 23.09.2022, after calculating amount of pending bills against the work executed under F.D.R. Fund, a Demand of Rs. |
| 362.77 Lakh has been forwarded for sanction of funds. The sanction of funds in regard to the aforesaid work has to be |
| granted at the level of the Ministry of Road Transport and National Highway, Govt. of Uttarakhand, new Delhi and Government of Uttarakhand. Ture/ correct typed version/ copy of the Letter No. 978 |
| dated 07.09.2019, Letter No. 1271 dated |
| 24.09.2021, Letter No. 1327 dated |
| 12.10.2021, Letter No. 558 dated |
| 21.05.2022 and Letter No. 1351 dated |
| 23.09.2022 are collectively being |
| annexed as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. |
| Therefore, as the when the sanction of |
|---|
| funds is received as per aforesaid in respect of pending bills of the petitioner, the further process for payment of amount as per Contract Agreement/ Bond will be proceeded.” |
| 6. The respondents have contended that |
| since necessary funds have not been released so far, therefore, payment could not |
| be made to petitioner, and final payment shall be made only upon receiving funds from the Central Government. 7. In such view of the matter, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to take necessary steps to ensure that allocation of funds is made at the earliest. As and when the funds are released, payment of the outstanding dues to petitioner shall be made, without further delay. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 01.03.2024 Navin |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the State can be directed to release outstanding payment for completed highway protection work despite funds not yet sanctioned by the Central Government.
Writ Petitioner (partnership firm, Class-A contractor)
State of Uttarakhand
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
