High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S A-One Builders & Co vs State Of Punjab And Another on 4 March, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S A-One Builders & Co vs State Of Punjab And Another on 4 March, 2009
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                  CHANDIGARH


                                   C.W.P NO. 2958 OF 2009
                                   DECIDED ON : 04.03.2009


M/S A-One Builders & Co.
                                             ...Petitioner
            versus

State of Punjab and another
                                             ...Respondents



CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT


Present : Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate,
          for the petitioner.


SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

Notice of motion.

Mr. S. S. Gill, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice.

The petitioner-company seeks a mandamus directing

the respondents to release the payment of Rs.1,48,769/- along

with interest.

The petitioner-company is a contractor, who is stated

to have executed the work allotted to him vide work order

No.5556/3 dated 04.07.2001 (Annexure P-1), within the

stipulated period and to the satisfaction of the authorities. Final

bills were prepared and due entries were also made in the

Measurement Book (Annexure P-2). However, the due payment is

not being released to the petitioner-company, despite a legal

notice dated 07.02.2007 (Annexure P-3) served upon the

respondents.

C.W.P NO. 2958 OF 2009 -2-

It appears that the petitioner-company 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.

In these circumstances, I am of the considered view

that whatever amount the petitioner-company 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.

MARCH 04, 2009                              (SURYA KANT)
shalini                                         JUDGE