HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 678/2025 CM No. 1610/2025 Umesh Singh …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate vs UT of J&K and another .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 19.03.2025 1. The petitioner, who claims to be a contractor, was allotted various works by respondent No. 2 from time to time after he participated in the tender process. It is being submitted that respondent No. 2 had allotted work namely “Construction of road by way of earth work cutting in KM 8th RD 500-1000, KM 9th 0-1000 and KM 10th RD 0- 500 on Matlote to Pattian Road” vide Allotment No. 947-50 dated 25.05.2018 for an estimated cost of Rs. 9,97,200/-. According to the petitioner, he completed work to the entire satisfaction of the respondents. It has been further submitted that cost of the work executed by the petitioner exceeded the estimated cost as the same was of emergent in nature and on the directions of respondent No. 2, the petitioner executed the extra work. It has been submitted that the cost of construction was revised to Rs. 13,42,000/- but the same has not been released in favour of the petitioner. Serial No. 124 2 WP(C) No. 678/2025 2. It has been further submitted that respondent No. 2 had allotted another work, namely, “Construction of road by way of earth work in km 1st RD 0-500 on approach road to Kharoli at Matlote” vide Allotment Order No. 7178-81 dated 03.03.2016 for an estimated cost of Rs. 3,65,711/-. It has been submitted that estimated cost in this work also exceeded and it was revised to Rs. 3,69,931/-. Out of this amount, only an amount of Rs. 25000/- was released in favour of the petitioner, whereas balance amount to the tune of Rs. 3,44,931/- is still pending disbursement. 3. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 had allotted another work, namely, “Providing and laying of 25 mm thick SDBC over 75 mm thick WMM in KM 1st and 2nd on Baldhanu to Suluk road” vide Allotment Order No. 1589-92 dated 27.06.2017 for an amount of Rs. 29,44,500/-, which was revised to Rs. 36,96,860/-. An amount of Rs. 9,09,000/- stands released in favour of the petitioner in respect of this work, whereas balance amount of Rs. 27,87,860/- is still pending. 4. It has been submitted that the petitioner has been representing before the respondents for release of amount on account of his pending dues for the aforesaid works but the same is not being released in his favour. It has been further submitted that total outstanding liability is Rs. 44,74,791/-. It is being contended that the respondents are obliged to release the aforesaid amount in favour of the petitioner. 5. Issue notice to the respondents. 6. Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG accepts notice. 3 WP(C) No. 678/2025 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner would feel satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to release the outstanding dues in favour of the petitioner within a specified period. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law on the basis of available record, whereafter they shall take a decision in the matter most expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is made available to the respondents. 9. Disposed of. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Jammu 19.03.2025 Neha-II Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No NEHA KUMARI 2025.03.20 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document