1 S. No. 39 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1062/2022 CM(2657/2022) MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. M. A. Beigh, Advocate. Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy.AG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 24.02.2025 (ORAL) 1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs: - i. Writ of Mandamus, or any other order or direction, the respondents be directed to pay the balance / unpaid amount an amount of Rs. 269500/- to the petitioner out of the total amount of Rs. 414493/- against the allotted work mentioned in para 3, executed and completed by him along with interests at present bank rate over the said amount from the date it became due i.e. bill date. ii. Writ of Mandamus, or any other order or direction, directing the respondents to pay Rs. 1 Lac to the petitioner for letting him to suffer on account of undue withholding of due amount, which the petitioner would have invested in his business and earned profits had the same been withheld unduly and also for making the petitioner to suffer mental agony and loss of goodwill/reputation amongst the people and banks with whom the petitioner has business relationships and was not able to repay their borrowed loans due to non payment of due amount for works done compensate by the respondent besides litigation expenses. 2. The aforesaid reliefs have been prayed by the petitioner on the premise that the petitioner is a registered Government Contractor with tremendous amount of experience in the field and, as such, came to be allotted a work of shifting of PHE utilities 150 mm dia D.I of Raw Water main from the house of Nazir Ahmad Zagoo at Nagam towards Khalhaar Kand Koot from RD 2400 to 2750 mtrs of water supply scheme Achabal town coming under constt. Of Brengi canal road by R&B Division, Vailoo for a total amount of Rs.4,14,493/- and an agreement as well executed in this regard by the petitioner with the respondents and upon execution of the work in question to the satisfaction of respondents within the stipulated time, the petitioner 2 herein raised bill, whereupon the Assistant Executive Engineer PHE- respondent 5 herein submitted the same to the Executive Engineer PHE-respondent 4 herein on 27.05.2019 for approval which came to be accorded and accordingly an amount of Rs.1,44,500/- came to be released in favour of the petitioner on 07.05.2019 with remaining balance of Rs.2,69,500/- which amount, however, was not released by the respondents despite the petitioner approached number of times to the respondents and ultimately on account of failure of the respondents to release the same filed the instant petition. 3. 3. Reply to the petition has been filed by the respondents wherein the petition is being opposed on the premise that upon thorough examination of the matter, no record pertaining to the instant case were found in the Division Office including the tender documents, allotment and other essential documents while stating further that no such verified bills/claims pertaining to the work in question are available in the office records. It is further stated that the work in question has been allotted to the petitioner is glaring violation of Codal Procedures and the guidelines laid down by the Director General Audit and Inspections dated 28.02.2020 which provides that bill presented for payment should be thoroughly scrutinized to ensure the codal formalities especially in case of works and procurement, and that bills pertaining to work taken up without administrative approval/technical sanction should not be entertained for payment even in case of previous liabilities while providing further that no compromise on adherence of the codal provisions especially e-Tendering, Administrative approval and Technical Sanction should be allowed. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Having regard to the respective pleadings of the parties being that on one hand the petitioner claims to have executed work pursuant to an allotment order issued by respondent 4 as also received part payment thereof upon satisfactorily completion of work in question, the respondents on the other hand deny to have any record pertaining to the work in question claimed to have been allotted to the petitioner 3 available in their office serious disputed questions of facts have arisen in the matter. 5. Although this Court in appropriate case may entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact, yet, the consistent view of the Apex Court has been that a writ petition involving serious disputed questions of fact which require consideration of evidence, a writ under Article 226 will not be entertained. 6. In view of the specific stand taken by the respondents that the record pertaining to the work in question is not existing in the records including notified bills/clams, this Court will not be in a position to render any decision on the claim of the petitioner in view of the aforesaid denial and refusal of the respondents as the said issues can appropriately be decided by the parties by adducing relevant evidence. 7. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to display indulgence and exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution as a consequence whereof the petition is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the instant petition on the aforesaid ground shall not come in the way of the petitioner in seeking redressal of his grievance in an appropriate proceedings available to him under law provided there is no legal impediment thereto. 8. Disposed of. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 24.02.2025 Ishaq Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether approved for reporting ? Yes/No