HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No.318/2025 Sunil Choudhary, Age 41 years S/o Yash Paul Choudhary R/o Village Bidipur Jattian, Tehsil R.S.Pura, Jammu ….Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through :- Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate V/s 1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Irrigation and Flood Control Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu 2. Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Department, Jammu 3. Superintending Engineer, Hydraulic Circle, Jammu 4. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division No.11, Jammu ….Respondent(s) Through :- Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 03.06.2025 1. By this petition, the petitioner herein is seeking a direction upon the respondents to release the payment of Rs.1,34,415/- in favour of the petitioner, which is due to him on account of the execution of the work namely, “improvement of canal section of D-10 at RD 12200 Mtr Ranbir Canal” along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of completion of the said work till its realization. 2. It is submitted that the work in question was allotted to the petitioner vide communication No.JID/II/2152-58 dated 11.06.2015, issued by respondent No.4. The allotted cost of the work was to the tune of Sr. No. 30 2 Rs.1,49,630.00. According to the petitioner, he has completed the afore- stated work successfully within the prescribed time. After successful execution of the work, the bills were submitted and after proper verification Form-25 was issued, which indicates that the respondents accepted the same to be true and correct to the tune Rs.1,34,415/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not releasing the aforementioned payment despite approaching number of times and requesting for release of the admitted liability, which has been withheld by the respondents without any justifiable reason. 3. Per contra, in the objections filed by the respondents, though the allotment and execution of the work in question has not been denied, yet to resist the prayer of the petitioner for release of the liability accrued to him, it is stated that the codal procedures including obtaining the requires administrative approval and technical sanction were not followed at the time of allotment of work. It is stated by the respondents that Rs.30,000/- has been released in favour of the petitioner by the then Executive Engineer in absence of codal formalities. Additionally, the claim of the petitioner is assailed on account of delay and laches. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that there is an admission by the respondents with regard to the execution of the work allotted to the petitioner. It is argued that the plea of non-adherence to the codal formalities viz. accord of administrative approval and technical sanction cannot be raised by the respondents at this stage. To substantiate his argument, reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on an order passed by Division Bench in LPA No.268/2024 Union 3 Territory of J&K and others v. Ram Pal dated 14.05.2025. To counter the plea of delay and laches, relying upon a judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.804/2021 Rattan Singh Parmar v. Union Territory of J&K and others, decided on 27.02.2025 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that codal procedures were not followed while allotting work to the petitioner and that availability of funds was not verified before allotting the work. It is stated that there are mandatory requirements as per financial rules to ensure accountability and proper use of public funds. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The respondents have not denied the allotment and execution of the work by the petitioner. The amount claimed by the petitioner, too, has not been disputed by the respondents. The only ground on which the claim of the petitioner is resisted is that the codal formalities like accord of administrative approval and technical sanction were not followed. Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 14th May, 2025 passed in LPA No.268/2024, has observed that it is the responsibility of the respondents and their officials to ensure that requisite codal formalities are followed and that for the fault of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be penalized. Paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the order are relevant and are reproduced hereunder:- “8. It was the duty of the appellants to grant/get the administrative approval & technical sanction before execution of the work and once the officials of 4 the appellants have failed to get the same before getting the work executed from the respondent, it is too late in a day to raise such plea, therefore the same is rejected. 9. Similarly, it was the responsibility of the appellant and their officials to ensure that the requisite codal formalities are followed for the purpose of getting the work executed from the respondent. For the fault of the appellants and their officials the respondent cannot be penalized, when it is admitted by the appellants that the work has been executed by the respondent.” 8. From the afore-quoted extract of the order of the Division Bench, it becomes evident that it was the responsibility of the respondents and their officials to ensure that the requisite formalities are followed for the purpose of getting the work executed from the petitioner and for the fault of the respondents and their officials, the petitioner cannot be penalized, when the execution of the work is not denied. 9. Insofar as the plea of delay and laches is concerned, this Court in Rattan Sing Parmar (supra) while relying on judgments of the Supreme Court in Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International, (1979) 4 SCC 176 and Vidya Devi v. State of H.P. (2020) 2 SCC 569 has held that when a contractor executes work to the satisfaction of the Government, more particularly when there is admission on the part of the respondents with regard to the completion of the work, payment for the same cannot be denied only on the ground that the petitioner has been filed after an inordinate delay. Para 12 of the judgment reads thus:- 5 “12. In terms of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law. When a contractor executes work to the satisfaction of the Government, more particularly when there is admission on the part of the respondent with regard to the completion of the work by the petitioner, non-payment of the same cannot be denied only on the ground that the petition has been filed after an inordinate delay.” 10. In view of the settled legal position, when the amount claimed by the petitioner is not disputed by the respondents on account of execution of the aforesaid work, the objections raised by the respondents to deny release of balance amount merits rejection. 11. As a sequel to the above, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the admitted liability of Rs.1,34,415/-, as indicated in Form -25, in favour of the petitioner within a period of two months from today along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this petition the amount is so released. Jammu: 03.06.2025 Vinod. ) (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge Whether the order is reportable: No Vinod Kumar 2025.06.04 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document