Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 95 (JK)

Manzoor Hussain v. UT of J&K

2025-03-05

RAJESH SEKHRI

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a mandate to the respondents, in particular respondents no. 3 and 5, for the release of admitted liability of Rs. 9.45 lacs on account of the execution of work, regarding construction of temporary bath rooms and allied works for Budha Amarnath Ji Yatra at Rajouri, along with interest @ 18 % per annum. 2. The case set out by the petitioner is that pursuant to the issuance of tender and acceptance of his bid by respondent no. 3, the work of construction of temporary bath rooms and allied works for Budha Amarnath Ji Yatra at Rajouri, came to be allotted in his favour vide allotment order no. EER/R&B/OG/2023-24 dated 25.09.2023. He executed and completed the allotted work to the satisfaction of the executing agency and raised bills amounting to Rs. 9.45 lacs, which came to be submitted by respondent no. 4 to the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B) Division Rajouri-respondent no. 3 on 24.11.2023, after the completion certificate came to be issued in his favour by respondent no. 3 and signed by respondent no. 4. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 3, while admitting his liability submitted the bills to respondent no. 5 vide its communication no. 11196-97 dated 14.12.2023. He approached respondent no. 5 for release of the billed amount, who further admitted liability of the petitioner and produced a communication addressed to Director Urban Local Bodies, Jammu regarding release of funds against the allotted work. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite lapse of considerable time and representation made by him, his admitted liability has not been released in his favour and same has been withheld by the respondents without any lawful justification. 3. Heard arguments and perused the file. 4. Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 4 has produced a Govt. Order No. 43-JK(HUD) of 2020 dated 04.02.2020, to contend that engineering wings of the Urban Local Bodies have been abolished and the execution of works came to be assigned to the Public Works (R&B) Department. According to Mr. Heard arguments and perused the file. 4. Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 4 has produced a Govt. Order No. 43-JK(HUD) of 2020 dated 04.02.2020, to contend that engineering wings of the Urban Local Bodies have been abolished and the execution of works came to be assigned to the Public Works (R&B) Department. According to Mr. Gupta, after the abolition of engineering wings of Urban Local Bodies, though all the payments/work done claims of the erstwhile Urban Local Bodies are being processed by Public Works (R&B) Divisions of the concerned Urban Local Bodies, however, the Finance Department has issued guidelines/modalities vide its circular dated 26.04.2021 for strict adherence by all the departments with respect to release of past liabilities and in case of any violation, action is required to be initiated against the erring officer. In essence, it is the stand of learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 4 that admitted liability of the petitioner can be released only after release of funds by the concerned Urban Local Body and accord of sanction and administrative approval of the work. 5. It is by far a crystallized position of law now that it is not for the contractor, executing the work on behalf of the government or its agencies or Urban Local Bodies for that matter to consider whether Administrative approval, technical sanction and other legal formalities have been completed or not before undertaking a work, duly allotted in his favour by the competent authority. If a work duly sanctioned and allotted is executed and a completion certificate in this respect is issued in favour of a contractor, it is for the Government or the executing agency to explain that how work was executed in the absence of accord of approval and completion certificate is issued. A contractor who undertakes a particular work, after its due allotment, undertakes the same on the legitimate belief that the work is being undertaken by him after its due approval and completion of all the legal and codal formalities. Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Surya Construction v. The State of UP (Civil Appeal No. 2610/2010 dated 02.05.2010), has clearly ruled that State, while entering into a contract or agreement with private individuals, must act in just, fair and reasonable manner because contractual obligations of the State co-exist with its constitutional obligations. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Surya Construction v. The State of UP (Civil Appeal No. 2610/2010 dated 02.05.2010), has clearly ruled that State, while entering into a contract or agreement with private individuals, must act in just, fair and reasonable manner because contractual obligations of the State co-exist with its constitutional obligations. 6. Reverting to the present case, uncontroverted facts of the case are that a tender came to be issued and bid of the petitioner was accepted vide acceptance letter issued by the respondents on 11.08.2023. The subject work came to be allotted in his favour by virtue of allotment order dated 25.09.2023. The bills raised by the petitioner were submitted by respondent no. 4 to respondent no. 3. Completion certificate was also issued in favour of the petitioner by respondent no. 3, which is duly signed by respondent no. 4. There is accord of administrative approval for the subject work by respondent no. 5 vide order dated 05.08.2023. Pertinently, respondent no. 3, while admitting liability of the petitioner has already submitted the bills raised by him to respondent no. 5 vide its communication no. 11196-97 dated 14.12.2023 and respondent no. 5 has already requested vide his communication no. MCR/2024-25/40 dated 24.04.2024, the Director Urban Local Bodies, Jammu for release of funds. 7. It is evident from the aforesaid communications that respondents have neither denied the execution of work done by the petitioner nor the liability to make the payment. Competition certificate, after the execution of work has also been issued in favour of the petitioner. The final bill raised by the petitioner is not in dispute. It appears that it is only the Director Urban Local Bodies Jammu, who has to issue funds for the release of admitted liability of the petitioner. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed and respondent no. 5 is directed to release the funds within a period of three weeks and on receipt of the same, admitted liability of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 9.45 lacs shall be paid to him by respondents no. 1 to 4 within two weeks from the date copy of this order is made available to them, failing which, interest @ 6% per annum shall be payable to the petitioner from the date of filing of the present petition till its realization. 9. With the aforesaid direction, petition stands disposed of.