NO.122 SUPPL. LIST WP(C) No. 1060 of 2023 · High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
meager amount involved, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Be that as it may, having regard to the nature of controversy and the meager amount involved, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider claim of the petitioner for release of balance amount, as is claimed for…
- Para 55. It is made clear that this Court has not given any opinion with regard to the admissibility or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner to the amount of Rs.101495/ (rupees one lac one thousand four hundred ninety-five). The respondents shall be free to…
Judgment
Through: Mr. Parvaiz Ahmad Lone, Advocate. UT of J&K & Ors. Through: Vs. ….RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE (ORDER)(ORAL) 08.05.2023
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner feeling aggrieved of the failure of the respondents to release the admitted payment in his favour for the works he had successfully executed, he along with others filed OWP No.1121/2016 in which this Court, while issuing notice to the respondents, disposed of the application for interim relief by providing that pendency of the writ petition shall not come in the way of respondents in according consideration to the case of the petitioner for release of outstanding amount whatever due under rules.
It is submitted by the petitioner that in compliance to the interim direction passed in the aforesaid writ petition, the respondents considered the claim of the petitioner for admitted payment and released an amount of Rs.3,79,888/ leaving a balance of Rs.101495/ (rupees one lac one thousand four hundred ninety-five). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, however, the amount aforesaid has remained outstanding.
Ordinarily, the petitioner should have filed an application for restoration of the petition and pursued the same for the reason that on the basis of the cause of action, petitioner had already filed a writ petition and the second writ petition was not maintainable.
Operative part
Be that as it may, having regard to the nature of controversy and the meager amount involved, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider claim of the petitioner for release of balance amount, as is claimed for in this writ petition, and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law.
It is made clear that this Court has not given any opinion with regard to the admissibility or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner to the amount of Rs.101495/ (rupees one lac one thousand four hundred ninety-five). The respondents shall be free to verify claim of the petitioner and proceed accordingly. Srinagar; 08.05.2023 “Bhat Altaf, PS” (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Whether the order is speaking: Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Yes/No
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.