Judgment Sanjeev Kumar, J.— (i) Factual Matrix: 1. In the year 2014, a mega event of International Film Fare Award (IIFA) was scheduled to be held in Florida USA from 23rd to 26th of April, 2014. The J&K Tourism Department had intended to join the event and participate therein as “Associate Partner”. Accordingly, the respondents approached the petitioner for organizing its participation in the said event. The petitioner, who had the requisite expertise and experience in managing such participation, agreed to approach IIFA and negotiate with them for sponsorship of J&K State Tourism and Culture Department in the said event. The idea was to promote tourism of Jammu and Kashmir at National and International level through its association with the mega event. 2. After negotiations, the respondents approved participation of J&K Tourism and Culture Department in the event and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3.99 crores inclusive of all taxes to the petitioner organization for arranging the participation of the respondents in the said event. It is claimed that the petitioner arranged the effective participation of the respondent Department as “Associate Partner” in IIFA mega event held at Florida in USA and this was to the entire satisfaction of the respondents. 3. The short grievance of the petitioner as raised in this petition is that the respondents only released a sum of Rs.1.92 crores in favour of the petitioner and deferred the payment of balance amount of Rs.2.7 crores on the ground of paucity of funds and some inter-departmental clearances. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that there is no dispute that for the job assigned to it, a total amount of Rs.3.99 crores was settled to be paid. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner performed its assigned job to the entire satisfaction of the respondents. The petitioner, therefore, submits that in view of successful completion of the job assigned to it, there is no reason or justification to withheld the balance payment of Rs.2.7 crores. It is the further contention of the petitioner that for the last so many years it has been running from pillar to post to get its due payment but the respondents are tossing it from one office to another but are not releasing the amount due to it. (ii) Response of the Respondents 5. It is the further contention of the petitioner that for the last so many years it has been running from pillar to post to get its due payment but the respondents are tossing it from one office to another but are not releasing the amount due to it. (ii) Response of the Respondents 5. In the response filed by Director, Tourism, Kashmir, on behalf of the respondents, the fact that the event was managed by the petitioner to the entire satisfaction of the respondents is not denied. However, the respondents are showing their inability to pay the petitioner the balance amount for the reason that at the time of awarding contract to the petitioner, codal formalities had not been completed nor the relevant job orders for different activities of the event had been placed before the respondents. It is, thus, urged that in the absence of these vital and important formalities, the conduct of event lost its utility and, therefore, respondents in such eventuality could not authenticate or corroborate the event claimed to have been performed by the petitioner. 6. There is one status report filed by the Director, Tourism, Kashmir, purportedly in compliance to the order dated 05.10.2020 whereby the respondents had been directed by this Court to comply with its earlier order dated 20th of August, 2018. It is pertinent to note that this Court vide its order dated 20th of August, 2018, had directed the respondents to take steps for payment of the agreed amount due and payable to the petitioner within a period of six weeks. In the status report it is submitted that in compliance to the directions of this Court, a Committee was constituted vide Government Order No.06-TSM of 2018 dated 03.01.2018 and as per the minutes of the meeting, which was held on 09.02.2018 under the Chairmanship of the Secretary to Government, Tourism Department, the remaining payment was agreed to be released to the petitioner by the Director Tourism, Kashmir. The release of payment to the petitioner was, however, subject to the condition that the petitioner company would submit all documents regarding deliverables in support of its claim. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3 received a bill of Rs.1,44,59,300// out of which an amount of Rs.36.04 lakhs was released in favour of the petitioner. The release of payment to the petitioner was, however, subject to the condition that the petitioner company would submit all documents regarding deliverables in support of its claim. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3 received a bill of Rs.1,44,59,300// out of which an amount of Rs.36.04 lakhs was released in favour of the petitioner. Rest of the amount, it is claimed, could not be released for want of necessary documents regarding deliverables in support of the claim. This, in nutshell, is the response of the respondents. (II) Consideration and Conclusion: 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record, I am of the considered view that the balance payment due to the petitioner cannot be denied on the basis of ipse dixit of the respondents. Once it is not denied that the petitioner company completed the job assigned to it to the entire satisfaction of the respondents, there should be no reason or justification to deny it the payment which is settled and agreed with it. The plea of the respondents that codal formalities were not completed at the time of award of contract is totally misconceived and cannot be accepted in the face of the fact that a part payment has already been released in favour of the petitioner. Otherwise also, in meeting held on 9th of February, 2018, under the Chairmanship of Secretary to Government, Department of Tourism, a conscious decision was taken by the respondents to release the balance payment due to the petitioner through Director, Tourism, Kashmir, and this release of payment was only subject to the petitioner company submitting all the documents regarding deliverables in support of its claim. In that view of the matter, the respondents can only insist for production of requisite documents regarding deliverables and nothing beyond that. Mr. Altaf Naik, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that all the requisite documents have already been provided to the Director, Tourism, Kashmir, and if there is any shortfall or shortcoming, the petitioner is ready and willing to provide the said documents yet again. 8. Mr. Altaf Naik, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that all the requisite documents have already been provided to the Director, Tourism, Kashmir, and if there is any shortfall or shortcoming, the petitioner is ready and willing to provide the said documents yet again. 8. In the background of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be just and equitable to disposed of this petition by providing as under: (I) That the petitioner shall submit all the requisite documents regarding deliverables in support of its claim, which it was required to provide in terms of minutes of the meeting held on 9th of February, 2018 and the proposal submitted by the Event Management Company (petitioner herein), within a period of two weeks from the date of this order; (II) That on receipt of the requisite documents and after their due verification, the respondents, particularly respondent No.3, shall take steps to release the balance payment due to the petitioner along with simple interest @6% per annum within a period of four weeks thereafter; (III) That in case the needful, as directed above, is not done within the period stipulated, the amount payable to the petitioner shall be paid along with simple interest @9% per annum. Order accordingly. 9. Disposed of along with connected applications.