JUDGMENT : D.S. Thakur, J. 1. The present Letter Patents Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.04.2018. In the writ petition, the petitioner had laid a claim for an amount of Rs. 1.80 crores along with interest @ 12 per annum on account of works having been completed by him for and on behalf of the J&K State Sports Council. 2. Reliance was also placed upon by the petitioner before the Writ Court on a certificate dated 08.05.2017, issued purportedly by the Executive Engineer concerned, certifying that an amount of Rs. 1.80 crores was due and payable to him. Reliance was also placed upon the Government Order No. 35-Edu(YSS) of 2017 dated 27.03.2017, whereby the budgetary allocation was made and sanctioned in favour of the J&K Sports Council purportedly towards the satisfaction of the contractor’s liabilities. 3. On the matter having come up before the Writ Court on 26.04.2018, the same was decided with a direction to the respondents to release the amount, which was due to the petitioner, keeping in view the Government order dated 27.03.2017 and certificate dated 08.05.2017. 4. Ms. AnshujaTak, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the order impugned was passed ex parte, without even issuing notice to the J&K State Sports Council. It was urged that only the Deputy Advocate General, who appeared for the State who had nothing to do with the J&K State Sports Council had appeared before the Court and consented for the final disposal of the writ petition. 5. Mr. R. K Gupta, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that the order impugned was innocuous, as the liability had been crystallized and there would be no justification for withholding the amount, which was otherwise found due and payable to the petitioner/respondent No. 1 herein. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. While it may be true that the petitioner may have some right on account of execution of certain contract works allotted to him by the State Sports Council, yet the amount, which is due and payable to the petitioner is seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant, who stated that an amount of Rs.1.82 lac only was payable to the petitioner/respondent No. 1 herein. 8. 8. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we are of the opinion that the Writ Court first ought to have heard the appellant herein before final disposing of the matter. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 26.04.2018 is set aside. Registry is directed to post the writ petition before the writ Court on 14.08.2018. 9. Meanwhile, parties to complete the pleadings in the writ petition. 10. Disposed of, accordingly, along with connected IA.