Shazad Ahmed Khan v. UT of J&K Th. Commissioner Secretary to Govt., PWD(R&B) Department, Civil Secretariat

Through: Mr. K.K. Pathan, Advocate. Vs

1. UT of J&K Th. Commissioner Secretary to Govt., PWD(R&B) Department, Civil Secretariat, J&K Govt., Jammu/Srinagar;

2. Chief Engineer, PWD Pir Panjal Range;

3. Superintending Engineer, PWD(R&B), Poonch;

4. Executive Engineer, PWD/R&B Lessana, Surankote;

5. Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD(R&B), Sub-Division Lessana;

6. Junior Engineer, PWD(R&B), Sub-Division Lessana. .….Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Palvi Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE ORDER (26.11.2024)

Petitioner through the medium of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the following reliefs:-

a. CERTIORARI Quashing the impugned e-NIT No.07/2024-25 dated 08.08.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 without closing of the earlier allotment of the petitioner whereas the petitioner almost completed construction of Road work from Eidgah Marhote to Solian (Surankote) same is 2 WP(C) No. 1977/2024 again in e-NIT by way of balance earth work in Cutting, Cross Drainage, Walling providing and laying of 150mm thick WBM Grade-II, 75mm thick and 25 mm thick OGPC in Km 1st RD 0 to 3rd RD 500 under NABARD RIDF XXVI for an amount of ₹190.80 lacs. As such the respondents issued the e-NIT just want to give the undue benefits of their blue eyed person without for closing of allotment of the petitioner. b. MANDAMUS Commanding direct the respondent No. 1 to appoint a special team for inspection of the site where the petitioner had already executed the road work as per the allotment work for an amount of ₹1,44,31,720/- and the balance amount of the petitioner of for an amount of ₹78.00 lacs required to be released in favour of the petitioner even though repeated request for releasing of the outstanding amount in favour of the petitioner. C. MANDAMUS Commanding direct the respondent No. 1 to initiate the enquiry against the respondent Nos.2 to 6 and frame a committee for time manner submit the report to respondent No. 1 and same is appraised to this Hon’ble Court till then the e-NIT dated 08.08.2024 required not to open till the committee report submitted before this Court. d. PROHIBITION for an amount of Restraining the respondents No. 2 and 3 not to open the e-NIT bid dated 08.08.2024 in favour of any participant, without sassing the construction work as already executed by petitioner as per allotment issued by the respondent No. 3 in favour of the petitioner (Rupees One Crore, Forty Four Lacs, Thirty One Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty only). Further till the release of payment of the petitioner Rs.78.00 lacs. (Seventy Eight Lacs+) of construction of road from Eidgah Marhote to Solian (Surankote) which the petitioner filed the several representation for releasing of same.

₹1,44,31,720/-

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the project, namely, construction of road from Eidgah Marhote to 3 WP(C) No. 1977/2024 Solian (Surankote) under NABARD scheme was allotted to the petitioner, vide e-NIT No. R&B/46/5193-96 dated 04.03.2022, however, he could not complete the work and despite notices, he had not resumed to complete the work and the respondent No. 3- Superintending Engineer, terminated his contract vide order No. SEP/R&B/1412-16 dated 31.07.2024 and a fresh tender was floated for balance work vide e-NIT No. 07/2024-25 dated

08.08.2024, as a result the allotment order was issued on

18.10.2024 and the work has been started.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the only grievance now left with the petitioner is to ask for an assessment of the work done by him earlier, so that there remains no dispute with regard to the claim of the works by the petitioner as contractor to have worked earlier and the new contractor, who may have been allotted the balance work and seeks a direction to the respondents to make assessment of the work done by the petitioner before the new contractor starts the work on the project and prayed that the petition be disposed of with this direction. His statement in support of his contention is taken on record.

Viewed thus, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the petition on hand is disposed of, at this stage, with a direction to the respondents to assess and 4 WP(C) No. 1977/2024 work out the claims of the petitioner-contractor for the work, executed by him before starting of work by the new contractor, so that no dispute arises between them later on with regard to their claims. The respondents shall be well advised to make a team of their field officers, so that a credible report is prepared by them, which remains undisputed in future.

Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of along with connected application(s). JAMMU 26.11.2024 Ram Krishan (M A CHOWDHARY) JUDGE Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No