& KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2494/2022 CM No. 6840/2022 & Ors. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. ( 2004 (3) SCC 553)” & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SINDHU SHARMA
Outcome
Disposed of
satisfied if this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In “M/S Surya Construction Vs. The State of U.P. in Civil Appeal No. 2610/2010 dated 02.05.2010”, it is held that it is well settled, even in the realm of contract, this Court can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as held…
- Para 66. This writ petition is disposed of along with connected application(s). Jammu 21.11.2022 Ram Murti (Sindhu Sharma) Judge
Judgment
Through: Mr. Irfaan Khan, Advocate Mitahir Ahmed Mir Vs UT of J&K and others .…. Respondents/Non-applicant Through: Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG Coram: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE ORDER
Petitioner, a registered “A” Class contractor, who participated and was awarded contract for construction of road from Kunda to Bhatta via Shaldan by way of P/L 25 mm thick SBDC over 50mm thick bituminous macadam (L=4.00 Km) under NABARD vide Fresh NIT No. 42 of 2019-20 dated 26-10-2019 to e-NIT No. 29 of 2019-20 dated 14-08-2019, NIT 18 of 2019-20 dated 08-07-2019 and NIT 41 of 2018-19 dated 15-02-2019 issued vide No. 11711-34 dated 25-10-
Grievance of the petitioner is that works allotted to him stand executed and after completion of the aforesaid works, the same was handed over to the department. The Executive Engineer has also issued a completion certificate in this regard to the petitioner. The respondents have not released the payment of Rs. 62,82,644/- but despite execution the works and completion certificate being issued, the respondents have not released the balance payment due to him for the execution of said work despite repeated representations. 2
In “M/S Surya Construction Vs. The State of U.P. in Civil Appeal No. 2610/2010 dated 02.05.2010”, it is held that it is well settled, even in the realm of contract, this Court can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as held in “ABL International Ltd. and Another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others ( 2004 (3) SCC 553)”. The work being completed long back and there being no dispute of amount and payment admitted by the respondents, same cannot be denied when the work stands executed.
Operative part
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would be satisfied if this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for release of the admitted payment due to them.
In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of at this stage itself with a direction to the respondents to consider and release the amount of the admitted liability due and payable to the petitioner for the works executed as per his entitlement in accordance with the contract, provided there is no legal impediment within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order made available to the respondents by the petitioner.
This writ petition is disposed of along with connected application(s). Jammu 21.11.2022 Ram Murti (Sindhu Sharma) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: satisfied if this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.