AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajnesh Oswal, J
For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and delay in filing the LPA is condoned.
Application stands disposed of.
Pursuant to e-NIT No. CEJ/PMGSY/475 of 2017-18 dated 30.10.2017, the respondent was allotted the work of Construction and Maintenance of Road from Malwana Jagir to Abli Masri, Package No. JK04-301, Phase-X, Stage-II, Block Doda District Length-6.00 kms, regarding which an agreement No. 237/CE/PMJSY/J of 2017-18 was also executed.
After the completion of the above-mentioned work, the respondent raised its final bill (CC-8) for release of the amount of Rs. 13.90 lacs, which was approved by the officials of the appellants. Further, appellant No. 4 requested appellant No. 3 to grant post-facto approval in favour of the respondent for release of amount of Rs. 13.90 lacs, but the amount as mentioned above was not released in favour of the respondent. Respondent lodged a complaint with the J&K Government Grievance Cell vide Grievance ID No. 999002697273 dated 25.01.2022 and in response thereof, appellant No. 4 replied that the payment against the work done beyond the allotment could not be made as the approval for the same has not been received from the competent authority.
Thereafter, the respondent filed the writ petition for directing the appellants to release the admitted balance amount of Rs. 13.90 lacs along with interest @ 18% per annum.
The writ petition preferred by the respondent was objected to by the appellants on the ground that the alleged excess work was done by the respondent on its own without any written agreement/approval and the respondent ought to have filed the civil suit instead of approaching the writ court through the medium of writ petition.
After considering the claims/rival claims of the parties, the learned writ court allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to pay the amount of Rs. 13.90 lacs along with interest @ 6% per annum till its realization.
Aggrieved of the judgment dated 05.08.2024 passed by the learned writ court, the appellants have approached this Court through the medium of intra court appeal thereby assailing the judgment of the learned writ court on the similar grounds, as urged before the learned writ court that the work was executed by the respondent on its own without any written agreement/approval of the competent authority and the claim of respondent was disputed.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
The perusal of the record reveals that the bill in respect of the additional work executed by the respondent was approved by the officials of the appellants after spot verification, as is evident from the running account bill placed on record by the respondent and not disputed by the appellants.
The appellants have also not denied the execution of the work by the respondent and their sole contention is that the work was executed by the respondent without any written agreement/approval. The respondent was allotted the contract mentioned above and it was only during the course of execution of the work allotted to the respondent that some additional work was executed by the respondent and it is difficult to fathom that a contractor would perform any work on his own and without direction of the appellants or their officials, thereby jeopardizing his financial interest.
Record further reveals that appellant No.4 had sought the post facto approval for release of the amount of Rs. 13.90 lacs through the medium of communication dated 14.02.2018 and it was for the appellants to grant the post-facto approval, but the appellants without any rhyme and reason did not proceed ahead to ensure the release of the amount in favour of the respondent.
We have examined the judgment rendered by the learned writ court and find that the learned writ court after taking note of the fact that the appellants have not denied the execution of the work and further that the final bill raised by the respondent has not been disputed by the appellants, has allowed the writ petition. In fact, there were no disputed questions of facts before the learned writ court, and, as such, learned writ court has rightly allowed the writ petition.
In view of what has been stated above, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.