Najeem Hafiz v. Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Public Works Department)

ORDER

16.07.2025

¶1At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is taken up out of turn.

¶2The record reveals that the instant petition is pending before this Court since November, 2022. This Court vide order dated 13.09.2024 had granted last and final opportunity to the respondents to file reply, and in spite of availing last and final opportunity, reply was not filed and by virtue of order dated 22.11.2024, four weeks further time was given to the respondents to file reply, which till date has not been filed.

¶3Thus, an inference can be drawn that the respondents are not interested in contesting the instant petition, as they have chosen not to file the reply.

¶4Mr. Adil Asimi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to a communication dated 18.10.2022, which is by way of reply to the legal notice issued by the petitioner, wherein, the respondent No. 4 has admitted that the work done costs of both the works is 34.96 Lakhs out of which Rs. 27,26,363/- has already been paid to the agency (petitioner herein) under proper head of account and in so far as the remaining amount is concerned, that till date has not been paid due to the non-availability of the funds.

¶5From a bare perusal of the aforesaid communication, where the respondents have admitted the liability of the petitioner, it has come to fore that the unpaid work done claims for the works executed by the petitioner has already been reflected by the respondents in the liability list, which has already been submitted to higher authorities for the release of the balance unpaid amount vide communication dated

17.11.2020, and in spite of the issue being raised before the higher authorities, the funds till date have not been released for the said works.

¶6The issue is pending before the respondents and till date the balance liability to the tune of Rs. 7,71,988/- has not been released in favour of the petitioner.

¶7Mr. Mohd Younis, learned Government Advocate, when confronted with regard to the aforesaid communication has nothing to say otherwise.

¶8Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶9Since the respondents have chosen not to file any reply and the record reveals that the respondents have admitted the liability of the petitioner, this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at this stage. The stand taken by the respondents in the communication dated 18.10.2022, that the payment could not be released due to non-availability of the funds under the relevant head, the same should not be a

stumbling block for the respondents for not releasing the payment in favour of the petitioner for the work, which he has already done in pursuance to the valid allotment order and has completed all the codal formalities.

¶10Thus, there is no justifiable reason not to release the payment in favour of the petitioner for the work executed by him and a duty is cast upon the respondents to release the admitted amount in favour of the petitioner.

¶11Accordingly, in the aforesaid backdrop and keeping in view the admitted stand of the respondents, the instant petition is allowed. The respondents 2 to 4 are directed to release the admitted amount to the tune of Rs. 7,71,988/- in favour of the petitioner within six weeks from today, subject to completion of all the codal formalities.

¶12It is made clear that in case, the amount is not released within the aforesaid period, the petitioner will be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% from the date, the amount was payable and denied by the respondents.

¶13The writ petition stands disposed of in the manner as indicated above.

(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)

JUDGE

SRINAGAR:

16.07.2025 "Adil Ismail"

Serial No. 52 Regular Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 2570/2022 CM(6498/2022) NAJEEM HAFIZ S/O HABIBULLAH MATOO R/O LAL MANDI, SRINAGAR, AGE 47 YEARS …Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Adil Asimi, Advocate Vs. 01. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY TO GOVT. PWD (R&B) DEPARTMENT, SRINAGAR. 02. CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD (R&B) DEPARTMENT, KASHMIR, SRINAGAR 03. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD (R&B) CIRCLE, SRINAGAR/BUDGAM 04. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R&B CONSTRUCTION DIVISION-II, SRINAGAR ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mohd Younis, GA vice Mr. A.R Malik, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE.