High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Deepak Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 February, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 February, 2009
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                  CHANDIGARH


                                   C.W.P NO. 2139 OF 2009
                                   DECIDED ON : 11.02.2009


Deepak Kumar
                                             ...Petitioner
          versus

State of Punjab and others
                                             ...Respondents



CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT



Present : Mr. R. K. Girdhar, Advocate,
          for the petitioner.


SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

Notice of motion.

Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, Assistant Advocate

General, Punjab, accepts notice.

The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the

respondents to release the payment along with interest for the

work executed by him.

The petitioner is a A-Class Government Contractor,

who is stated to have executed the work of de-watering of pond,

allotted to him 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, despite a legal

notice dated 04.11.2008 (Annexure P-1) served upon the

respondents.

C.W.P NO. 2139 OF 2009 -2-

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.

In these circumstances, I am of the considered view

that whatever amount the petitioner 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 11, 2009                           (SURYA KANT)
shalini                                         JUDGE