M/S Shree Construction Company v. The State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-01.02.2022 M/s Shree Construction Company

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Present:- Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner.

***** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J .(Oral) The case has been taken up for hearing through video-conferencing.

Petitioner has preferred this petition for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.51,65,524/- including the security qua the work done by the petitioner along with interest. Petitioner is a government contractor and has executed various works assignments assigned to it from time to time. The work of constructions of Nirman Sadan was assigned

--2-- to the petitioner on 15.08.2016 at Nirman Sadan, Rohtak. The said work was also inclusive of providing and fixing wooden partition and fire fighting system etc.

Petitioner has successfully completed the work assignment and final bill for the work-done was also passed by the competent authority but the amount has not been paid till date. With effect from 26.11.2020, the scope of work was increased and revised estimate amount was prepared by respondent No.4 and the same was submitted to respondent No.3 for grant of administrative approval. Respondent No.3 in turn sent the same to respondent No.4 for necessary approval. Respondent No.2 has further sent the same to respondent No.1 and also explained the necessity of framing the revised estimate along with break-up of the amount. The needful was not done. The petitioner had to represent to respondents No.2 to 4 for the release of the amount due but the same has not been done so far.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case, his representation dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure P-4) is directed to be decided by respondent No.4 within a specified period. Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr.Vivek Chauhan, Addl.

--3-- A.G., Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of nature of order which this Court proposes to pass, there is no necessity of calling upon response from the respondents at this stage, as no order prejudicial to the interest of any party is being passed.

This petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 to take an appropriate decision on pending representation/legal notice filed by the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with law preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If the petitioner is found entitled to its claim, then the amount be paid within a period of two weeks thereafter.

01.02.2022 ( Raj Mohan Singh ) geeta Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No