HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP (C) 2914/2023 CM (6922/2023) United Motor Cycles Residency Road Srinagar Through its Managing Partner Masood Ahmad … Petitioners/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Mohammad Hussain, Advocate V/s UT of J&K and others … Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, DAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 07-02-2025 1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has sought the following reliefs. In the premises, it is therefore prayed your Lordships to issue a writ, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus thereby commanding upon the respondents to release the balance admitted liability amounting to rupees 19,46,391/- (nineteen lac forty six thousand three ninety one) in favour of the petitioner with exemplary interest at prevailing market from the date of payments are due, up till its realization. Any other writ, order or direction the Hon'ble Court deems appropriate in the given circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. For which act the petitioner as in duty bound shall every pray and obliged. 2. The facts under the shade and cover of which the aforesaid relief has been prayed by the petitioner are that the respondent 5 herein invited e-Tender vide NIT no. JKEDI/CMAE/Advt/17/50 dated 12.7.2017 for supply, assembling, installation, commissioning and testing of Tailor-Made Project Specific WP (C) 2914/2023 Furniture items for JKEDI administrative building/JKEDI hostel complex at Pampore, Kashmir and the petitioner after responding to the said tender notice came to be found successful and consequently supply order vide no. JKEDI/U&E/2018/370- 372 dated 31.5.2018 came to be issued in its favour by respondent 5, which the petitioner successfully completed and a certificate of completion in this regard as well came to be issued by respondent 5 vide order no. JKEDI/U&S/20/141 dated 13 October 2010. 3. It is stated that the petitioner thereafter raised a bill for an amount of Rs. 2,01,30,724/- and submitted the same before the respondents, whereupon the respondents released the amount of bill after making 10% deductions, minus an amount of Rs. 19,46,371/- retained by the respondents for the warranty period of two years. 4. It is next stated by the petitioner that after the expiry of the said warranty period of two years, the petitioner approached the respondents for release of the retained amount of Rs. 19,46,371/- and submitted a representation in this regard as well before the respondent 4 on 30.11.2021, followed by another representation on 2.2.2022, and lastly on 3.3.2022, which representations, however, did not evoke any response from the respondents compelling the petitioner herein to submit a representation before the Lieutenant Governor, which too did not yield any result, whereupon the petitioner again submitted a representation WP (C) 2914/2023 before respondent 4 on 21.11.2022, whereafter a communication dated 6.1.2023 came to be addressed by respondent 4 to respondent 3 for release of security deposit, providing therein that since the Defective Liability Period has expired, as such, the security deposit amount of the petitioner be released in favour of the petitioner. 5. It is lastly stated that however, despite that, the respondent did not release the said amount, compelling the petitioner to submit further representations before respondent 2 on 24.7.2023, which too did not yield any result compelling the petitioner to approach this Court with the instant writ petition. 6. Respondents have not filed any reply to the petition, however, a compliance report has been filed in terms of order dated 10.11.20243 passed by this court, whereunder the respondents came to be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.11.2023, stating therein that a consideration order dated 9.7.2024 stands passed by the respondent 4 herein, a perusal of which consideration order would reveal that it is admitted by the respondents that the furniture from the petitioner came to be purchased by the respondent 4 vide supply order dated 31.05.2018 for administrative building at Bari Brahmana, Jammu, on repeat order basis for an amount of Rs.2,01,30,724/- which was further negotiated to Rs.1,94,63,910,/- and later the capital expenditure of JKEDI, Bari Brahmana, Jammu was covered under the Languishing Project Scheme of JKIDFC, and WP (C) 2914/2023 a total bill of Rs.2,01,30,724/- was uploaded on the portal of JKIDFC, and accordingly the payment was released in favour of the petitioner after deduction of 10% security deposit and applicable taxes, while further admitting that the petitioner after the lapse of Defective Liability Period, approached JKEDI for release of security deposit of Rs.19,46,391/- and JKEDI in turn approached JKIDFC for release of the said security deposit, and though the matter was taken up with respondent 1 herein for taking up the same with JKIDFC for release of the said security deposit amount in favour of the petitioner as the said amount shall be released in favour of the petitioner only after JKEDI receives necessary response from the JKIDFC. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Perusal of the record in general, and in particular the communication no. EDI/DIR/123/2024/342 dated 1-6-2024 addressed by respondent 4 herein to respondent 1 herein as also consideration order dated 9-7-2024 attached with the compliance report filed by respondents would reveal that the liability of the petitioner has been specifically admitted qua the amount of Rs. 194,6391, being the Security Deposit to be released in favour of the petitioner after the lapse of Defective Liability Period, which Defective Liability Period indisputably has expired in the year 2021 entitling the petitioner to the said amount of Security Deposit from the respondents, and admittedly the said amount WP (C) 2914/2023 has not been released in favour of the petitioner by the respondents despite having been admitted to be payable to the petitioner immediately after the expiry of Defective Liability Period. The failure of the respondents to release the amount in question to the petitioner herein cannot but be said to be unreasonable, unfair and legally untenable. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, the instant petition thus deserves to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the respondents, as such, are commanded by issuance of a writ of mandamus to release forthwith the amount of Rs.19,46,391/- to the petitioner from the date same became payable to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 7% till the date of its actual payment within a period of 8 weeks from the date of copy of this order is produced by the petitioner before the respondents. In the event of failure of the respondents to pay the amount in question to the petitioner herein within the above fixed timeframe, the aforesaid rate of interest payable to the petitioner shall stand enhanced to 12% from the date of the expiry of the period of aforesaid 8 weeks till the date of actual payment to the petitioner is made. 10. Disposed of. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE Srinagar 07-02-2025 N Ahmad Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes Nissar Ahmad Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 17.02.2025 14:35