HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 392/2023 Reserved on: 04.03.2025 Pronounced on : 09.05.2025 M/s Tech Build & Associates …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate V/s UT of J&K and others …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE JUDGMENT 01. The petitioner is a registered partnership concern and has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court through one of his partners. The petitioner was allotted the work for providing and laying of 25 mm thick mix seal carpet along with laying of 50mm thick Bituminous Macadam in stretches patches on Tomal Jattan Road Km 2nd RD 500-1000 and Km 3rd 0-1000. 02. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents for the release of the outstanding admitted amount of Rs. 52,25,954/-, which is stated to be due for the successful completion of the work executed by the petitioner, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of issuance of the completion certificate. 03. The aforesaid work allotted to the petitioner was executed by him within the stipulated time and to the satisfaction of the respondents. The cost of the work which was executed by him was Rs. 52,25,954/-. The contention of the petitioner is that the work allotted to him was duly executed and completed by him within the stipulated time and to the P a g e | 2 satisfaction of the respondents and an amount of Rs. 52,25,954/- was payable to the petitioner for execution of the work. Despite completion, the said amount has not been paid to him till date. The respondent No. 4, vide communication dated 30.04.2015, requested respondent No. 3 to accord post-facto approval for the execution of the aforesaid work by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has repeatedly approached the respondents for release of the payment for the execution of the work but respondent No. 1 expressed inability to process the payment due to absence of formal administrative approval from respondent No. 3. It was conveyed to the petitioner by respondent No. 4 that unless post-facto administrative approval is granted, payment cannot be released. 04. Respondent No. 3, vide communication dated 09.05.2015, accorded post-facto sanction for release of payment to the executing agency in respect of the aforesaid work after completing all the codal formalities to the cost of Rs. 49.50 lacs. The respondent No. 4 again, vide communication dated 27.01.2020, requested respondent No. 3 to accord post-facto administrative approval of Rs. 52.25 lakhs and also sought allocation of funds. 05. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 03.12.2021 to respondent No. 4 seeking release of the outstanding payment. He stated that, to the best of his knowledge, administrative approval stood accorded and there existed no bar on the release the payment. Despite completion of work and repeated communications and representations, the petitioner has not been paid the outstanding amount of Rs. 52,25,954/-. The respondents, despite admitting their liability to pay the P a g e | 3 petitioner, continue to withhold the payment on the pretext of non- availability of funds. 06. The respondents have objected to the claim of the petitioner for release of payment to the tune of Rs. 52,25,954/- on the ground that no such agreement has ever been executed between the petitioner and the answering respondents for the construction of the road. The respondents submit that the work executed by the petitioner has not even been approved by the competent authority. It is submitted that such a claim must be based on a valid contract between the parties. In this case, no such agreement was ever executed. There is no e-tender, allotment order, administrative approval, or technical sanction for the alleged work carried out by the petitioner, and the claim that it was done at the behest of some officer cannot be the basis for payment. The petitioner has failed to substantiate the claim and is thus not entitled to any such relief. The petitioner, despite knowing the fact that no such road had been duly sanctioned, cannot now claim payment for the same. The petition is therefore not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 07. The respondents have submitted that the present petition has been filed to enforce a monetary claim, for which an alternate remedy is available. It is a settled law that the writ jurisdiction is generally invoked where no disputed questions of fact exist, and where the action of the State is arbitrary and unreasonable. In the present case, the department disputes the amount claimed and submits that the work was never sanctioned, nor were funds earmarked. The respondents also submit that this petition suffers from delay and laches. 08. The only issue which is to be considered is if there was no administrative approval, technical sanction, or funds available with the P a g e | 4 respondents, then how and why was the work executed, and by whom, in the absence of such approval and funds. A contractor who executes work on behalf of a government department does so on the legitimate belief that the work is duly sanctioned and approved. It is not the responsibility of the contractor to verify whether all formalities, including administrative approval and technical sanction, have been completed. It is for the respondents to explain how such work was undertaken in the absence of the required sanctions and approvals. 09. The plea of the respondents regarding delay in filing the petition is also not tenable. The petitioner has been continuously pursuing his claim with the respondents. The communication dated 09.05.2015 by the respondent No. 3, seeking release of funds and enabling his office to make payment towards the work done liability, clearly indicates execution of work and acknowledgment of liability by the respondents. Therefore, the petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, particularly when the respondents themselves have sought release of funds for payment of the work done liability. 10. The execution of works stands admitted by the respondents, and the relevant details have also been provided by them. The respondents cannot avoid their liability to pay by taking refuge in the absence of technical sanction and administrative approval, especially when the responsibility for obtaining such approvals rested solely with them. Despite this, the respondents are denying the claim on the ground of lack of administrative approval. This plea is not available to them, as it was within their domain to ensure the requisite approvals were obtained. They cannot now raise this plea at this stage to defeat the legitimate claim of the petitioner. P a g e | 5 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2610 of 2019, decided on 08.03.2019, titled “M/s Surya Construction v. The State of U.P.”, held as under: “It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated 22.03.2014 that there is no dispute as to the amount that has to be paid to the appellant. Despite this, when the appellant knocked at the doors of the High Court in a writ petition being Writ Civil No. 25216/2014, the impugned judgment dated 02.05.2014 dismissed the writ petition stating that disputed questions of fact arise and that the amount due arises out of a contract. We are afraid the High Court was wholly incorrect inasmuch as there was no disputed question of fact. On the contrary, the amount payable to the appellant is wholly undisputed. Equally, it is well settled that where the State behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India *‘ABL International Ltd. and Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others’ (2004 (3) SCC 553)].” 12. In the present case, the respondents have acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, and unfairly. Since the liability is admitted, the petitioner is held entitled to payment of the amount due for the work executed by him. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the outstanding payment of Rs. 52,25,954/- in favour of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date a copy of this order as well as the writ petition is served upon them by the petitioner. 14. This petition is disposed of accordingly. (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Jammu: 09.05.2025 Vishal Khajuria