High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Limited vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 November, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Limited vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 November, 2009
Civil Writ Petition No. 17179 of 2009                               1




      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.


                   Civil Writ Petition No. 17179 of 2009

                     Date of Decision: 10.11.2009



The Chak Mohanta Wala Co-operative Labour and Construction Society

Limited.

                                                             ...Petitioner
                                     Versus
State of Punjab and Others
                                                           ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.


Present: Mr. O.P. Kamboj, Advocate
         for the petitioner.


Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

Petitioner claim that respondent No.5-Sub Divisional Officer

Canal Lining Sub Division-10, Bathinda, had issued a work order and in

pursuance of that it had executed the work to the satisfaction of the

respondents but due to acute shortage of funds, payment has not been

made to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

neither there is any defect in the work executed nor any legal

impediment in the release of funds.

Issue notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional

Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

Copy of the petition has been supplied to him.
Civil Writ Petition No. 17179 of 2009 2

The present writ petition is disposed of by issuing directions to

the respondents to release admitted payment to the petitioner, if there is

no legal impediment, within three months from the date of receipt of

copy of the order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest

on the amount due at the rate of 8% per annum. The interest shall be

calculated from the date of amount due till the final payment is made. In

case respondents find that the petitioner is not entitled to the payment,

they may pass a speaking order detailing the grounds on which the

petitioner is not entitled to the payment.

With the observations made above, the present petition is

disposed of.

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
November 10, 2009
“DK”