Ghulam Hassan Shah vs J. And K. BANK SRINAGAR

SHORTLY put and shorn of details the complainant in this complaint has alleged that he had transaction with O.P./Bank. Complainant was a contractor. He completed the works allotted to him by BDO, Kulgam. After physical verification by the concerned authorities payment order was approved to the complainant for work done at Kulgam, payment order was for the amount of Rs. 11,01,900.00 under payment Order No. 2316487 dated 31.3.1993. Concerned authorities issued WDC bill in favour of the complainant in the name of Treasury Kulgam. Instead of making the payment in cash for being the last date of Financial year i.e., 31.3.1993 issued aforesaid payment order and directed the complainant to approach the O.P. for payment. Payment orders were received by the complainant but when he went to the O.P./Branch for payment, payment was refused by the issuance of memo for the reason that the Government had stopped the payment. It was alleged that vigilance organization had registered FIR No. 14 of 193 against the contractors and other officials of the Rural Development Department. It was alleged that the payment was sanctioned for the works which were not actually executed by the contractors. Before presenting the challan the prosecution filed an application before Special Judge, Anti Corruption accompanied with Annexure-Amw wherein all the disputed payment orders were mentioned and the said Anti Corruption Court was requested to issue the order for freezing the amount which were cleared for the works not executed. Anti Corruption Judge passed the order accordingly on 21.9.1993. The claim of the complainant in this case is that complainant is neither accused in the challan regarding the payment of Rs. 11,01,900.00 nor his amount was frozen by the vigilance organization. His contention is that this amount does not figure in the Annexure A. According to him even then the Bank did not made the payment.

O.P. was summoned. The O.P. has taken different stand in the written version. No. 1, that all the amounts were seized by the Vigilance Organization. No. 2, they were ready to pay the amount but the complainant did not approach them directly but went to the Consumer Commission and 3rdly they have contended that the complainant is not entitled to any interest. Parties led the evidence and have filed the documents.

Heard learned Counsels for the parties. We have perused the record. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of the complaint the complainant was asked to get the clearance from the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Court as to whether amount of Rs. 11,01,900.00 frozen and included in the Annexure A. He has filed an application there and detailed order passed by the Special Judge Anti corruption Court has been filed which is dated 23.11.2002. Learned Counsel for the O.P. has vehemently argued that the complainant in this case has not obtained any clear order from the Anti Corruption Court for the release of the amount as was done in Complaint No. 90/1999 for Rs. 8.00 lacs.

WE have gone through the order dated 23.11.2002 in which the Special Judge Anti-Corruption Court has observed that the payment Order No. 2316487 dated 31.3.1993 does not exist in the Annexure A and it has also been observed that non-existence of the payment order in the Annexure A to the said order shall not be construed as clearance of entitlement of the petitioner to the said amount of Rs. 11,01,900. The petitioner is required to prove his entitlement under law to the said payment order, and at the end of the order it has been observed that the amount does not figure in the Annexure A to the order passed on 21.9.1993 by the then Presiding Officer of this Court whereby the payment orders were frozen. Heard. We are concerned only as to whether the amount of Rs. 11,01,900.00 was frozen or not and whether it existed in Annexure A. The Special Judge, Anti Corruption Court has candidly cleared this point by saying that neither this amount was frozen nor it included in Annexure A. Regarding observation made by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption with respect to the proof of the entitlement, his payment orders made in the name of complainant is enough proof that it was made only when the parties found that the work has been executed and he was entitled to the payment. Similar case was referred before us by this Commission in Mohammad Altaf and Mohammad Khalil v. JK Bank and Others, Complaint Nos. 123 and 124 of 1998. In this case also we have released the amount on the ground that it was not frozen nor it included in Annexure A. For these reasons, therefore, we agree with the learned Counsel for complainant that the complainant is entitled to the payment of Rs. 11,01,900.00 against the payment Order No. 2316487 dated 31.3.1993 because this amount was not frozen by the Vigilance organization nor it was frozen by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Court.

WITH regard to the question of interest we do not agree with the learned Counsel for complainant that complainant is entitled to the interest right from 1993 from the date of payment order on the ground that there was full justification for the O.P./Bank not to release the amount because it received several orders regarding freezing of all the payments but once it was made clear to them by the complainant that the amount was not frozen and the complainant filed the complaint as back as in 1999 at that time the O.P. should have given serious consideration for releasing that payment in favour of the complainant. We have seen aforementioned decided Case No. 123/124/1998. In this case Special Judge, Anti Corruption has clearly directed to release the amount which was not released. Here in this case it is at the last stage that some clarifications were sought from the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Court. For these reasons, therefore, we direct the O.P. to give interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint. Payment shall be made subject to the furnishing of a bond by the complainant to the effect that if at any stage after the completion of the investigation if the complainant is not found to be entitled to the amount or shall be declared to be involved in the embezzlement, the same shall be refunded by him to the O.P. with interest. Complaint disposed of.