CWP-21761-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Serial No.124 CWP-21761-2026 Decided on:20.07.2026 M/s Bhullar Constructions through proprietor . . . Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Ankur Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.(ORAL) The petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.2/Superintending Engineer, Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority (GLADA), Ludhiana, to take a decision on the petitioner’s appeal regarding the release of payment to the petitioner against the work of construction of an office building for Irrigation Department at Canal Colony, Dugri Road, Phase-I, Ludhiana, at an estimated cost of `169.80 lakh. The work was completed in 2012 but final payment was not released. 2. The petitioner filed an appeal dated 04.05.2012, Annexure P-4, before respondent no.2, which has not been decided so far despite several adjournments. A reference has been made to letter dated 18.10.2019, whereby the petitioner was asked to appear for hearing of the case on 31.10.2019, but no hearing took place. Thereafter, he made a request to hear the case vide letter dated 01.09.2020, Annexure P-7. And, hearing was again scheduled for MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.27 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-21761-2026 -2- 30.10.2020 vide letter dated 28.10.2020, Annexure P-8. Still, no proceeding took place and the petitioner had to again approach respondent no.2 for the purpose vide letters dated 03.12.2021, 17.03.2022 and 22.05.2023, Annexure P-9 to P-11. Considering the representations, the case was again scheduled for hearing on 20.06.2023 vide letter dated 15.06.2023, Annexure P-12, but nothing happened on that date also, forcing the petitioner to again submit letters/representations dated 30.12.2024 and 05.03.2025, Annexure P-13 and Annexure P-14, but to no effect. In these circumstances, he was constrained to file the instant petition. 3. Keeping in view the nature of directions being issued, service of notice upon the respondents has been dispensed with. 4. In the light of facts aforementioned, it is apparent that the petitioner’s appeal, dated 04.05.2012, seeking release of final payment still remains pending for decision. This pendency of appeal for over a decade has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate to direct respondent no.2 to decide the appeal within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law. The payment, if any, found due will be released to the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. 5. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 6. In case the appeal is not decided within the stipulated period, the officer concerned shall pay costs of `50,000 to the petitioner. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) 20.07.2026 JUDGE Mehak Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.27 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment