Serial No. 2 Regular Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1166/2022 c/w CCP(S) 478/2022 Tariq Ahmad Peer … Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Shahbaz Sikander, Advocate Vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Ilyas Laway, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 26.03.2025 WP(C) 1166/2022: 1. The petitioner, in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claims to be a registered contractor and, as such, was allotted a work contract by the respondents for an amount of Rs. 8, 81,110/- in terms of the allotment order No. 2521-24 dated 16th May, 2016, followed by another order for a supplementary contract, for an amount of Rs. 1,66,91,358/-, making the total contract amount Rs. 1,75,72,468/-. 2. It is stated that after executing the allotted works satisfactorily in accordance with the terms and conditions set out by the respondents, the petitioner raised a bill for release of the contract amount, however, an amount of Rs. 1,41,74,081/- remained unpaid by the respondents. 3. It is further stated that upon undertaking the execution of contract, the petitioner had raised bank as well as private loans, and the non- payment of the balance contract amount by the respondents has badly affected the rights and interests of the petitioner moreso, submitting representations before the respondents for the release of withheld contract amount, the respondents did not pay the same, though extended assurances thereof, necessitating upon their failure the filing of the instant petition. 4. Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondent 3, wherein the allotment of contract work orders amounting to Rs. 1,75,72,468/- stands admitted. Paragraph 5 of the reply, being significant and relevant to the controversy, is extracted and reproduced herein:- “5. In answer to para 5 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the said work was executed and completed by the petitioner contractor and the work done claim stands processed and submitted to the higher authorities for releasing the funds. The funds to the tune of Rs. 33.39 lacs were received, which stands paid to the petitioner contractor. The remaining work done claim/amount of Rs. 1, 41, 74, 081/- stands already communicated to the higher ups in the liability statement list of 2017-18.” 5. In view of the aforesaid specific stand taken by the respondent 3 in the reply supra, firstly not denying the fact that the works in question stand executed and complied by the petitioner and that out of the contract amount Rs. 33.39/- lacs have been paid to the petitioner, whereas the remaining amount of Rs. 1,41,74,081/- has remained unpaid and matter in this regard stands taken up with the higher authorities. 6. In view of 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 accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure payment of unpaid amount of Rs. 1, 41, 74,081/- in favour of the petitioner, preferably within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced by the petitioner before the respondents. 7. In the event of failure by the respondents to pay the said admitted unpaid amount to the petitioner as directed above, the respondents shall be liable to pay interest thereof at the rate of 6% per annum to the petitioner upon the said amount from the date the same was payable to the petitioner till the date of its actual payment. 8. Disposed of. CCP(S) No. 478/2022:- In view of the disposal of the main petition as above, the contempt proceedings are required to be closed. Ordered accordingly. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 26.03.2025 “Mir Arif”