High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pritpal vs State Of Punjab And Others on 14 October, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pritpal vs State Of Punjab And Others on 14 October, 2009
Civil Writ Petition No. 15778 of 2009                                  1




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


                  Civil Writ Petition No. 15778 of 2009

                      Date of Decision: 14.10.2009


Pritpal, Contractor
                                                              ...Petitioner
                                    Versus
State of Punjab and Others
                                                          ...Respondents


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


Present: Mr. P.S. Rana, Advocate
         for the petitioner.


Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

Petitioner claim that respondent No.4-Sub Divisional Officer,

Jhuneer Canal Sub Division, Jhuneer, District Mansa and respondent

No.5-Sub Divisional Officer, Bhaini Canal Sub Division Jawaharke,

District Mansa, had issued a work orders and in pursuance of that he

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.

The present writ petition is disposed of by issuing directions to
Civil Writ Petition No. 15778 of 2009 2

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
October 14, 2009
“DK”