HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through Virtual Mode) Reserved on: 28.04.2025 Pronounced on: 16.05.2025 CJ Court LPA No. 73/2025 [WP(C) No. 3169/2019] The Chief Engineer PMGSY JKRRDA Jammu and others …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG v/s M/s C&Z Associates (Joint Ventures) through its partner Ashwani Thakur. …. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE. JUDGMENT Per Oswal J’ 1. The respondent-firm was allotted the contract for construction of balance work of road from Khaog to Batodi, and it executed the work to the satisfaction of the appellants and even the completion certificate was also issued in its favour. During execution of the contract, the respondent did additional work by way of Slip Clearance in the years 2013, 2014 and 2015 amounting to Rs. 45.96 lacs in total, regarding which various inter se communications were made by officials of the appellant-Department to arrange the funds against the additional work done by the respondent in the years 2013, 2014 and 2015. The respondent has placed on record the communications dated 30.10.2013 and 25.01.2017 to demonstrate that the funds were sought 2 LPA No. 73/2025 by the officials of the appellants to clear the liability of the respondent. When the said liability was not cleared by the appellants, the respondent filed a writ petition for directing the appellants to release the payment of Rs. 45.96 lacs in its favour against the admitted work done liability by way of Slip Clearance in the years 2013, 2014 and 2015. 2. Appellants objected to the claim of the respondent by submitting that in absence of work order, technical sanction, administrative approval and also availability of the funds, the claim of the respondent cannot be considered and even no tender has been issued for the additional work allegedly executed by the respondent. 3. The learned Writ Court vide judgment dated 26.11.2024 allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and directed the appellants to pay Rs. 45.96 lacs to respondent within a period of six weeks from receipt of copy of the order. 4. Appellants have impugned the judgment dated 26.11.2024 through this intra-court appeal on similar grounds, as were raised by them while objecting to the writ petition like absence of work order, technical sanction and administrative approval, and non-availability of the funds, etc. Though the issue of delay has been raised in this appeal but the same was never urged by the appellants before the learned writ court, as such the same cannot be considered in the appeal. 5. Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned A.A.G, has argued that in absence of administrative approval and tendering process, no liability can be fastened upon the appellants in respect of work executed by the respondent. 3 LPA No. 73/2025 6. Per contra, Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there is admission on the part of the appellants in respect of execution of additional work by the respondent, which is duly substantiated by the communications placed on record by the respondent, whereby the funds were sought by the officials of the appellants for release of the admitted liability of the respondent. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Appellants have not denied the execution of work by the respondent. The only ground on which the claim the respondent is being objected to by the appellants is that the respondent has executed the work without any approval/sanction of the competent authority and in absence of tendering process. 9. This is an admitted fact that the respondent was allotted construction of balance work of road from Khaog to Batodi and while the respondent was in the process of executing the said work, additional works were assigned to the respondent. The communications dated 30.10.2013 and 25.01.2017 bear testimony to the fact that amount of Rs. 25.45 and Rs. 20.51 were sought by appellant No.3 from appellant No.2. Appellants have not denied the execution of additional work. It is difficult to believe that a Contractor would execute the work on his own without being asked to do so by the officials of the appellants, thereby putting his financial interest in peril. Since the appellants have not denied the execution of additional work by the respondent but are objecting to the claim of the respondent only on the ground of lack of administrative approval and tendering process, the appellants are under obligation to clear the liability of the respondent. In this context, 4 LPA No. 73/2025 it would be appropriate to take note of the judgment passed in case titled as “Union Territory of J&K & Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar” 2021 Legal Eagle (J&K) 110, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this court has observed that the petitioner who was allotted the contract by the Housing Board cannot be expected to first verify as to whether the contract that has been allotted to him was being executed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Housing Board or not, nor was he expected to refuse the execution of the work simply because the subject matter of the work was not put to open tendering system. 10. We have examined the judgment passed by the writ court and we do not find any reason to show indulgence. The present appeal is found to be misconceived and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Jammu 16.05.2025 Karam Chand/Secy. Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Nissar Ahmad Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 19.05.2025 16:59