High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dharam Pal Maddar vs Union Of India And Others on 5 March, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharam Pal Maddar vs Union Of India And Others on 5 March, 2009
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                  CHANDIGARH

                                  C.W.P NO. 3500 OF 2009
                                  DECIDED ON : 05.03.2009

Dharam Pal Maddar
                                              ...Petitioner
            versus

Union of India and others
                                              ...Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT


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


SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the

respondents to release the payment of Rs. 8,19,547/- along with

interest.

The petitioner is a Railway Contractor, who is stated to

have executed the works allotted to him by the respondent

authorities, within the stipulated period and to the satisfaction of

the authorities. However, the due payment is not being released

to the petitioner, despite a legal notice dated 07.02.2009

(Annexure P-1), served upon the respondents.

It appears that the petitioner is entitled to be paid

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

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

administrative reasons. However, no final view in relation thereto

can be expressed in the absence of the respondents to whom no

notice has been given.

C.W.P NO. 3500 OF 2009 -2-

In these circumstances, suffice to observe that

whatever amount the petitioner is 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.

MARCH 05, 2009                               (SURYA KANT)
shalini                                          JUDGE