M/S NEW SAHARA ELECTRICALS v. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (TOURISM / CABLE CORPORATION)
WP(C)/1039/2024 · 2025-03-14
Javed Iqbal Wani
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7320 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7320 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
WP ( C ) No. 1039/2024
Serial No.05 Regular list
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR.
WP (C ) No. 1039/2024
M/S New Sahara Electricals. ….. Petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. Showkat Ahmad Makroo, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahil Noor, Advcoate.
V/s Union Territory of J&K & Ors. ….. Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy. AG with Ms. Nowbahar Khan, Assisting Counsel.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
14.03.2025. 1. In the instant petition, the petitioner herein states to have been allotted work by the respondents for providing Illumination facility to G-I Station at Gandola, Gulmarg, pursuant to NIT bearing No. AEE/91-95/JKSCC, dated 29.09.2014, against a cost of Rs. 25,87,325/- after accord of administrative approval dated 25.12.2014 whereupon the petitioner after executing the said work satisfactorily raised the bill for the amount in question, out of which an amount of Rs.10,24,245/- and Rs.6,62,122/- came to be released in favour of the petitioner on 3rd July, 2016 and on 10th September, 2016 respectively, leaving a balance amount of Rs.6,00,958/- with the respondents, which amount had been kept as security by the respondents for five years being a ‘lock in period’ which ‘lock in period’ expired in the year 2020-21, whereafter the petitioner requested the respondents for release of the said balance amount of Rs. 6,00,958/-, however, the respondents Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
WP ( C ) No. 1039/2024
did not release the same, even after the repeated requests and demands were made by the petitioner leaving thereby no option open to the petitioner except to approach this Court through the medium of instant petition. 2. Objections to the petition have not been filed by the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the petition, inasmuch as the record available on the file in general and in particular the information furnished to the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI) by the respondents in regard to his claim, it gets revealed that the respondents have admitted to have retained an amount of Rs. 6,00,633/- qua the work in question after releasing an amount of Rs. 13,24,245/- and Rs. 6,62,122/- in favour of the petitioner. The said information also reveals that the balance amount has been agreed to be released in favour of the petitioner subject to fulfillment of the following conditions:- a) Technical Sanction from the competent authority. b) Work done estimate. c) Completion certificate from civil wing. d) Whether quality control has been maintained while executing the works, civil wing may report, e) Final bill should be framed with reasons of delay and, f) Photographs thereof. 4.
The aforesaid information furnished to the petitioner under RTI Act dates back to 21st November, 2022, and according to the petitioner despite the said admission made by the Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
WP ( C ) No. 1039/2024
respondents, qua unreleased amount inasmuch as, despite the fulfillment of all the requisite formalities in this regard, the respondents did not release the said balance amount in favour of the petitioner without any lawful justification. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, the instant petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage with the consent of the appearing counsel for the parties and is
disposed of with a direction to the respondents to effectively consider the release of the amount of Rs. 600633/- without any further delay, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced by the petitioner before the respondents. The consideration be accorded to the claim of the petitioner on its own merits and in accordance with the applicable rules.
Disposed of along with connected CM(s).
(Javed Iqbal Wani)
Judge SRINAGAR 14.03.2025
“Abdul Rashid” Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document