HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2513/2022 Reserved on: 21.12.2024 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 its partners. The petitioner was allotted the work of laying 50 mm thick Bituminous Macadam and 25 mm thick Semi-Dense Bituminous Concrete (SDBC) on the Talab Tillo–Gajansoo Road from Talab Tillo to Sangrampur (L = 15.42 kms), and 30 mm thick SDBC on the Revenue Complex Road (L = 3.08 kms). 02. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents for the release of the admitted amount of Rs. 1,81,21,434/-, which is stated to be due on account of 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 was initially allotted to the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 3,96,49,200/-, which was duly executed within the stipulated time and to the satisfaction of the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents allotted additional work to the petitioner amounting to Rs. P a g e | 2 1,29,29,772/-, which was also duly executed by the petitioner, thereby bringing the total value of the work executed to Rs. 5,25,78,972/-. 04. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the work having been allotted and satisfactorily executed by him, the respondents have failed to release the amount due to him. 05. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent No. 3, vide communication dated 21.10.2019, requested respondent No. 2 to accord post-facto approval for the additional works amounting to Rs. 1,29,29,772/-. The respondent No. 2 subsequently accorded administrative approval for the said additional work vide communication dated 26.07.2021, approving the execution of the work for an amount of Rs. 523.20 lakhs. 06. The petitioner submits that the entire work was executed within the stipulated time and to the satisfaction of the respondents. It is submitted that out of the total amount of Rs. 5,25,78,972/-, a sum of Rs. 3,44,57,540/- has already been paid, and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,81,21,434/- is still outstanding. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a direction for the release of the said admitted liability. 07. The respondents have objected to the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the contractor has executed additional works amounting to Rs. 1,29,29,772/-, which is 32.6% over and above the originally allotted amount, however, the post-facto accord for the Administrative Approval and Accord (AAA) for the total work amounting to Rs. 523.20 lakhs was granted vide Order No. 48 of 2021 dated 26.07.2021 and endorsed under communication No. CEJ/DB/6642-45 dated 26.07.2021. The technical sanction for the said work was also granted vide Order No. 319 of August P a g e | 3 2021 and endorsed under communication No. CEJ/DB/9365-66. The respondents submit that the work executed by the petitioner has not even been approved by the competent authority. 08. It is further submitted that the supplementary agreement, which was required to be executed between the department and the contractor on the same rates, as per communication dated 24.10.2019, is not found on record either in the files attached with the petition or in the records of the Sub- Divisional Office. Therefore, the authorization to execute the additional work over and above the original allotment has not been formally accorded by any competent authority. 09. It is also submitted by the respondents that the present writ petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches, having been filed after a delay of more than six years, therefore, the petition is time-barred, not maintainable, and liable to be dismissed. 10. The respondents, in their objections and communications placed on record, have admitted the execution of work by the petitioner, however, the respondents have denied the payment on the grounds of lack of administrative approval, technical sanction, and availability of funds. The respondents have also contended that no supplementary agreement was entered into between the parties, and since the petitioner did not execute the excess work pursuant to any formal agreement, his claim is not maintainable. 11. 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 supplementary affidavit not being on record when the responsibility for P a g e | 4 the same rested solely with the respondents. The respondents are denying the claim on the ground of lack of requisite documents being on record. This plea is not available to them and they cannot now raise this plea at this stage to defeat the legitimate claim of the petitioner. 12. The plea of the respondents regarding delay in filing the petition is not tenable. The petitioner has been continuously pursuing his claim with the respondents. The communication dated 21.10.2019 by 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 post-facto approval for release of funds for payment of the work done liability. 13. 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)].” P a g e | 5 14. 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. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the outstanding payment of Rs. 1,81,21,434/- in favour of the petitioner, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the payment became due, within a period of eight weeks from the date a copy of this order along with the writ petition is served upon them by the petitioner. 16. This petition is disposed of accordingly. (SINDHU SHARMA) Judge JAMMU 09.05.2025 Vishal Khajuria