Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5045 (JK)

BASHIR AHMED MALIK v. SHALINDER KUMAR COMMISSIONER SECRETARY PWD R AND B DEPTT AND OTHERS

CCP(S)/317/2023 · 2025-01-01

Wasim Sadiq Nargal

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CCP(S) No. 317/2023 Bashir Ahmed Malik, Age 59 years, S/o Lt. Ghulam Mohd. Malik, R/o Village Chamalwas, Tehsil Banihal, District Ramban. …. Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Irfaan Khan, Advocate. V/s 1. Shalinder Kumar, Commissioner/ Secretary to Govt. of J&K, PWD (R&B), Civil Secretariat, Jammu. 2. Sh. Prakash Chander Tanoch, Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (R&B), Jammu. 3. Sh. Rampaul Gupta, Superintendent Engineer, (R&B), Circle Doda, Doda. 4. Sh. Abhishek Gupta, Executive Engineer, (R&B), PWD Division, ….Respondent(s) Sr.No. 11 2 Ramban. Through :- Ms. Pallavi Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE ORDER 01.01.2025. 1. The instant contempt petition has been preferred for implementation of order/judgment passed by this Court dated 28.12.2022 by virtue of which the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and release the amount of admitted liability due and payable to the petitioner for the works executed as per his entitlement in accordance with the contract provided there is no legal impediment within a period of three months from the date a copy of the aforesaid order was made available to the respondent by the petitioner. 2. Since, the aforesaid order/ direction passed by this Court was not complied within the aforesaid period and feeling aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has preferred the instant contempt petition in which notice was issued way back on 06.11.2023. Pursuant thereto, the respondents have filed the statement of facts, a perusal whereof reveals that respondents have admitted that the funds have been released by the concerned Chief Engineer, PWD(R&B) Department, Chenab Zone, Batote on account of restoration works executed by the petitioner. However, the payment could not be processed without administrative approval from the competent authority, which according to the respondents, is under process and the 3 respondents are on record admitting that the payment shall be released in favour of the petitioner after the Administrative approval by the competent authority. 3. With a view to fortify their claim, the respondents have also placed on record communication bearing No. EEB/6800-04 dated 31.12.2024 a perusal where of reveals that the funds have already been released by the Chief Engineer and the case is pending for the administrative approval by the competent authority. 4. The respondents have further taken a stand that since the matter is under active consideration of the competent authority which will take some time and accordingly, as and when the approval is granted by the Administrative Department and subject to the completion of the requisite formalities, the due payment will be released in favour of the petitioner immediately thereafter. 5. Thus, in light of the stand taken by the respondents, no fruitful purpose will be served to keep this contempt petition pending before this Court and, accordingly, this Court deems it proper to direct the respondents to accord necessary Administrative Approval within a period of three weeks from today and release the payment in favour of the petitioner strictly in tune with order/judgment passed by this Court dated 28.12.2022 subject to verification and fulfillment of all other necessary formalities as required under law. 6. Copy of the statement of facts which has been supplied to this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents is taken on record. 7. Accordingly, proceedings in the instant contempt petition stands closed. Rule, if any, shall stand discharged. 4 8. However, it is made clear that in case the aforesaid direction is not complied with by the respondents within the period granted by this Court, the petitioner will be at liberty to revive the instant contempt petition and, in that eventuality, this Court shall be constrained to take coercive measures against the respondents. (Wasim Sadiq Nargal) Judge Jammu: 01.01.2025 Neha-1 Neha Kumari 2025.01.02 01:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document