CWP-13022-202 IN TH Upper India Ca Punjab State Tr CORAM: HON Present: - Mr. Mr. *** JAGMOHAN B 1. The the Constitution Rs.10,08,447/- direction to resp penalty. 2. Lear allotment letter d The petitioner co conditions includ payment, howev 12.01.2026 order petitioner. The 2026 -1- N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGAR CW Dat ia Carriers Ltd. Versus ate Transmission Corporation Limit HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGM Mr. Ritesh Malik, Advocate, for the Mr. Anshul Jain, Advocate, for the r *** AN BANSAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner through instant petit tution of India is seeking direction to which has been deducted withou o respondents to refund Rs.2,89,643/ Learned counsel for the petitioner letter dated 04.09.2024 assigned work ner completed its work and raised inv including consideration were incorpo however, on the basis of audit o ordered to recover a sum of Rs.10,08 The respondents have deducted afor NJAB AND HARYANA GARH CWP-13022-2026 Date of Decision: 07.05.2026 …Petitioner Limited & others …Respondents AGMOHAN BANSAL or the petitioner. the respondents/PSTCL. t petition under Articles 226/227 of on to respondents to refund a sum of without reason. It is further seeking 9,643/- which has been deducted as tioner submits that respondents vide work of supplying hydraulic truck. ed invoice. In the contract, terms & ncorporated. The respondents made udit objection, vide memo dated s.10,08,447/- from future bills of the d aforesaid amount from the future oner s of m of king ed as vide ruck. s & made dated f the uture VIMAL KUMAR 2026.05.07 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13022-202 payment of the Rs.2,89,643/- in t 3. Lear correct that petit other terms & c petitioner claime payment as per w submitted lower excess payment recovered. The p in service. 4. Hea 5. Ther the petitioner. Th that L-2 who ha contract. The pe already rendered quality of service a sum of Rs.10,0 contention of the authority has no r 6. Neit document or co penalty. In the a 2026 -2- f the petitioner. The respondents ha in the name of penalty. Learned counsel for the responden t petitioner was awarded work order s & conditions, amount of consider claimed consideration as per work or s per work order, however, during au lower bid. The petitioner by mistake yment to the tune of Rs.10,08,447/ The petitioner may be subjected to pe Heard the arguments and perused th There is no explanation for imposin er. The respondents have deducted a ho had offered lower bid and petiti The petitioner raised invoice as per w ndered services. There is no disput service. Under these circumstances, th Rs.10,08,447/- on the ground that L of the respondents is misconceived. T no right to withhold the aforesaid am Neither petitioner nor respondent or concrete information disclosing n the absence of documentary evidenc have further withheld a sum of ondents submits that it is factually order and in the work order besides nsideration was incorporated. The ork order. The petitioner was paid ring audit it was found that L-2 had istake was allotted work. There was 8,447/- which was required to be d to penalty on account of deficiency sed the record. mposing penalty of Rs.2,89,643/- on cted a sum of Rs.10,08,447/- alleging petitioner by mistake was allotted per work order. The petitioner has dispute with respect to nature and ces, there was no reason to withhold at L-2 had offered lower bid. The ved. The respondents being a public said amount. ndents have placed on record any losing reason to impose aforesaid vidence, this Court cannot return any m of ually sides The paid had was o be iency on ging otted r has and hold The ublic any esaid any VIMAL KUMAR 2026.05.07 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13022-202 finding, thus, pet aforesaid amoun would look into t 7. Let 8. Disp 07.05.2026 Vimal Wh Wh 2026 -3- petitioner is granted liberty to appro mount of penalty. The Court is sang into the matter and clarify the positio Let the needful be done within four Disposed of in above terms. Whether speaking/reasoned Ye Whether reportable Ye o approach authorities with respect to is sanguine that competent authority osition. four weeks. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No ect to ority AL) VIMAL KUMAR 2026.05.07 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document