High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sandeep Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 February, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 February, 2009
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                CHANDIGARH


                               C.W.P NO. 2703 OF 2009
                               DECIDED ON : 19.02.2009


Sandeep Kumar
                                          ...Petitioner
           versus

State of Punjab and another
                                          ...Respondents



CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT



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


SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

Notice of motion.

Mr. G. S. Attariwala, Additional AG, Punjab accepts

notice.

Having regard to the nature of order which I propose

to pass, learned State counsel submits that there is no need to

file any counter affidavit.

The petitioner is a government contractor, who is

stated to have executed various works like supply of material,

allotted to him by the respondents from time to time. The above

said work was completed within the stipulated period and to the

satisfaction of the authorities. The said amount has not been

released to the petitioner, despite service of legal notice dated

29.08.2008 (Annexure P-1), upon the respondents.
C.W.P NO. 2703 OF 2009 -2-

It, thus, 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, the Civil Writ Petition is disposed of with

a direction to the respondents to settle the petitioner’s account

and whatever is found due, to release the same to him 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 adjudicated upon in these

proceedings and the petitioner would be at liberty to recover the

same, if so admissible, as per law.

Disposed of.

FEBRUARY 19, 2009                              (SURYA KANT)
shalini                                            JUDGE