High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

The Talwandi Rama Co-Op. Labour … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 25 February, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Talwandi Rama Co-Op. Labour … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 25 February, 2009
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                  CHANDIGARH


                               C.W.P NO. 2943 OF 2009
                               DECIDED ON : 25.02.2009

The Talwandi Rama Co-op. Labour Society
                                    ...Petitioner
         versus

State of Punjab and others
                                          ...Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT


Present : Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate,
          for the petitioner.


SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

Notice of motion.

Mr. G. S. Attariwala, Additional AG, Punjab, accepts

notice.

The petitioner-Society seeks a mandamus directing the

respondents to release the payment of Rs.6,02,228/- along with

interest @ 18% for the work executed by it.

The petitioner-Society has executed the work allotted

to it by the respondents, within the stipulated period and to the

satisfaction of the authorities. However, the due payment is not

being released to the petitioner-Society, despite a legal notice

dated 14.08.2007 (Annexure P-2) served upon the respondents.

It appears that the petitioner-Society is entitled to be

paid certain dues on account of the work executed by it. The said

payment, however, is not being released for one or the other

administrative reasons.

C.W.P NO. 2943 OF 2009 -2-

In these circumstances, I am of the considered view

that whatever amount the petitioner-Society has been found

entitled to by the respondents, there is no justification to

withhold the same.

Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a

direction to the respondents to settle the petitioner’s account and

whatever is found due, release the same within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

As regards the petitioner’s claim for interest, the same

cannot be effectively decided in these proceedings and the

petitioner would be at liberty to recover the same, if so

admissible, as per law.

Disposed of.

FEBRUARY 25, 2009                           (SURYA KANT)
shalini                                         JUDGE