Jammu and Kashmir High Court
WP(C)/1230/2022 of MOHD SADIQ Vs U T OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY PW R AND B DEPTT AND OTHERS on 11 August 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 1230/2022 Mohd. Sadiq …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. H. R. Qureshi, Advocate. vs UT of J&K and Ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG. Coram: HON’BLE MR.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 1230/2022
Mohd. Sadiq
…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. H. R. Qureshi, Advocate.
vs
UT of J&K and Ors.
.…. Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG.
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
11.08.2026
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner was allotted work vide allotment No. 5716-23 dated 28.09.2016 for the “construction of R/wall Km 1st Rd 0-25 on Ari Bridge to Dakki Bye Pass road.” issued by respondent No. 5 pursuant to e-NIT No. 30 of 2016-17 dated 12.08.2016. Further in terms of communication dated 24.10.2017, respondent No. 5 intimated respondent No. 4 that respondent No. 6 has asked and recommended the petitioner for execution of additional work, as tendering the same in a short period was not possible. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 90 lacs. Thereafter, vide another communication issued by respondent No. 4 dated 22.11.2017, respondent No. 5 was asked to take appropriate action to execute additional quantum of work through the same agency on the same item rate terms and conditions, as mentioned in allotment order dated 28.09.2016. Serial No. 15
2 WP(C) No. 1230/2022
3. It is contended by the petitioner that though he has executed all the works mentioned above, but an amount of Rs. 17,27,000/- is yet to be paid to the petitioner.
4. The respondents in their response have admitted the allotment of the original work to the petitioner and also additional works which the petitioner was asked to execute and further in para 7, it is stated that bill of the petitioner has been passed by the office of respondent No. 5 and submitted to the District Treasury, Poonch for payment but due to technical problem/failure of internet, the payment could not be processed by the treasury. As such, as and when the funds are received by the office of respondent No. 5, the payment shall be made to the petitioner.
5. The respondents have admitted the liability of Rs. 17,27,000/- in lieu of the works executed by the petitioners and it is their stand that as and when the funds are received, the amount shall released in favour of the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to release the admitted amount of Rs. 17,27,000/- in favour of the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of filing of this writ petition till the actual payment, within the period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu 11.08.2026 Neha-1
Neha Kumari 2026.08.12 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document