Court Directs Release of ₹28.93 Lakh for Road Restoration Works; 6% Interest if Payment Delayed
JAMMU, August 13 : The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the Government cannot deny a contractor’s legitimate payment after admitting that the work was actually executed, merely on the ground that prescribed procedural formalities were not completed or that the claim was raised after a delay.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal passed the observations while disposing of a petition filed by Abdul Rashid Malik, who had sought the release of ₹28.932 lakh for road restoration works allegedly carried out during 2014 and 2019 in Reasi district.
The authorities had opposed the petitioner’s claim, arguing that no formal agreement had been executed with him and that the works had allegedly been undertaken without administrative approval, technical sanction and the prescribed tendering process. The Government had also questioned the petition on the ground of delay and laches.
The High Court, however, took note of the fact that the respondents themselves had admitted execution of the works by the petitioner.
The Court observed that once the Government had acknowledged that the work was executed, the contractor’s legitimate claim could not be defeated simply by relying on procedural objections or delay.
The Court made strong observations regarding the manner in which legitimate claims of contractors are sometimes resisted, observing that it had become routine for the Government to deny such claims by raising what it described as “false and misconceived pleas.”
The High Court also examined the authorities’ reliance on a report relating to the absence of records concerning rainfall, cloudburst or flash floods. The Court observed that the report appeared to have been used as a “camouflage to deny the justified claim” of the petitioner.
Justice Oswal further observed that if the works had been carried out in alleged connivance with government officials despite non-compliance with procedural requirements, the authorities should clarify what action had been taken against the officials responsible for such lapses.
The Court held that the petitioner, having executed the works at the instance of the authorities, could not reasonably have been expected to refuse to undertake them merely because certain codal formalities had not been completed by the Government.
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the committee’s decision declining the petitioner’s claim and directed the concerned authorities to release the payment for the executed works within three months.
The Court further ordered that if the authorities failed to make the payment within the stipulated period, the petitioner would be entitled to 6% annual interest from the date of filing of the petition.
The petitioner was represented by Advocates Arshad Hussain and Rahoof Khan, while the respondents were represented by Senior AAG Monika Kohli, assisted by Advocates Sagira Jaffer and Pallvi Sharma.
The ruling underscores that government departments cannot take advantage of their own procedural lapses to deny payment for work actually executed and accepted by the authorities.
