S. No. 230 Suppl. Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 2647/2025 Cell Comm Computers …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Ms. Syed Ainain Qadiri, Advocate Vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Jahingeer Ahmad Dar, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 27.10.2025 1. In the instant writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “By a writ of Mandamus: a) The Respondents may be directed to release the balance admitted amount of Rs.30,62,093/- (Thirty Lakhs Sixty-Two thousand and Ninety-Three) in favour of the petitioner for the work order supplied by him along with 18% interest from the date the same has been withheld by the Respondent- Department. b) The Respondents be burdened with exemplary costs and damages of Rupees Five Lakhs for the harassment, agony, loss and injury suffered by the petitioner for the inaction of the Respondents for withholding the balance payment unnecessarily or at least they may be directed to pay the interest amount paid by the petitioner from the date the payment has been stopped by the respondents.” 2. The background facts made mention of in the instant petition for seeking aforesaid relief, are that the then Youth Services and Sports/ Technical Education Department, placed supply order in favour of petitioner through Government-e-Marketplace (GeM). Petitioner claims to have supplied the various items, viz. 135 numbers of HP 600 GS AIO i5 8500 Win 10P 813 ODD, All in One PC, and 235 numbers of Desktop Computers, in pursuance of supply Order no.GEMC- 511687768517128 dated 05.03.2020 for an amount of Rs.2,32,49,000/-. It is being stated that as against said outstanding amount, respondents have released only Rs.2,01,86,907/- instead of Rs.2,32,49,000/- and have withheld balance amount of Rs.30,62,093/- which has not been released to the petitioner constraining him to file instant writ petition. 3. Ms. Syed Ainain Qadiri, learned counsel for petitioner would aver that the Government of India has enjoined upon all the Government Departments in all the States, which includes the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, to make purchases through online mechanism viz GeM, and it is in compliance thereof that Respondent-Department has issued supply order through GeM in favour of the petitioner way back in the year 2020, but the outstanding payment thereof is yet to be cleared by the respondents. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is being unnecessarily thrown from pillar to post under the garb of bureaucratic wranglings. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner to enforce the case set up by petitioner, would state that since the work/supplies carried out by the petitioner has been advantageously utilized by respondents, therefore, retention of payments is illegal and against principles of natural justice. She would further contend that petitioner is also entitled to be compensated keeping in view the economic inflation and other factors incidental to the delayed payments and the petitioner has been put to severe adversities and prejudice, as such, entitled to restitution on equitable terms. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the case has state that the instant writ petition can be disposed of at this stage by directing respondents to release balance amount of Rs.30,62,093/- in favour of the petitioner. 6. Mr. Jahangir Ahmad Dar, learned GA, appearing counsel for the respondents, submits that he is not averse to the disposal and prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner. He, however, submits that the case of the petitioner will be examined on the touchstone of rules governing the field and if at all there is any balance amount to be paid to the petitioner for the supplies made, the same would be released in favour of the petitioner. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the matter and perused the record of the file. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for parties, instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to accord effective consideration to the release of the balance amount of Rs.30,62,093/- in favour of petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date copy of this order is served upon the respondents. 9. Disposed of along with CM. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 27.10.2025 Shabroz