The court reaffirmed that government authorities cannot withhold payment for undisputed work executed by a contractor merely on the ground of absence of prior administrative approval, when liability and completion are admitted. This decision upholds settled legal principles, reinforcing that administrative lapses of officials cannot prejudice legitimate contractors’ dues. Binding on all subordinate courts handling government contract and public works matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WP(C)/1111/2024 of ALTAF HUSSAIN DAR Vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (PUBLIC WORKS / SMC) CNR JKHC010023812024 |
| Date of Registration | 24-05-2024 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL |
| Court | High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar |
| Bench | Single Bench (HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL) |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Type of Law | Service/Contract Law – Public Works Payments, Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether payment for executed works admitted by the authorities can be withheld on the ground of lack of administrative approval, when liability and completion are otherwise undisputed. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that once government authorities have admitted the execution of work and their liability towards the contractor, the latter cannot be denied rightful payment merely due to the absence of administrative approval. It observed that it was the responsibility of the officials to have secured such approval prior to commencement. The administrative lapses of government officers cannot deprive the contractor of dues legitimately earned. The admitted amount, along with interest, must be paid within a stipulated time. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner executed various public works at the behest of officials, with a completion certificate issued. Despite requests and legal notice, the respondent delayed payment citing lack of administrative approval. The respondents admitted the works, the liability, and indicated only the absence of procedural approval as cause for non-payment; technical sanction and a test check certificate were in place. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and public authorities within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts dealing with similar government contract disputes regarding public works and administrative approval. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that administrative lapses by government officials (i.e., failure to obtain prior approval) cannot serve as a ground to deny payment for works already executed and admitted.
- Establishes that once execution and liability are admitted, the authorities’ internal procedural gaps do not override contractors’ legal rights.
- Clarifies that interest at 6% per annum must be awarded from the date of petition filing till the date of actual payment, strengthening the contractor’s remedy in future disputes.
- Lawyers handling government contract cases can cite this as binding authority to counter administrative approval objections when liability is already admitted.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the admitted execution of works and the acknowledged liability from the respondents’ own reply, who cited only lack of administrative approval as reason for delay.
- It reasoned that the petitioner, having legitimately completed the works, could not be denied payment due to failures on the administration’s part to secure prior approval. Such procedural lapses are solely attributable to public officials, not contractors.
- Technical sanction and test check certificate were found to be present; only administrative approval was missing.
- The court directed prompt release of the admitted sum with interest, emphasizing that legitimate commercial claims cannot be stalled by bureaucratic inefficiency.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Executed works as instructed by government officials, and completion certificates were duly issued.
- Despite repeated requests and serving a legal notice, payment was unlawfully withheld.
- Sought directions for immediate release of due payment.
Respondents
- Admitted that works valued at ₹60,18,000 were executed and technical sanction granted but lacked prior administrative approval.
- Claimed payment could be made only after post facto administrative approval.
- Asserted liability but cited procedural hindrance as cause for non-payment.
Factual Background
The petitioner undertook several government works at the request of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation officials. Completion certificates were issued, and the Executive Engineer confirmed the execution. The contractor’s claims for payment, supported by official communications and a legal notice, went unpaid due to the government’s failure to obtain prior administrative approval—although technical sanction and test check had been completed. The respondents admitted both the execution and their liability.
Statutory Analysis
The court considered the legal consequences of executing government contract works without administrative approval. It did not interpret or expand any specific statutory provision but reinforced established administrative and contract law principles that the absence of internal sanction alone does not defeat a contractor’s right to payment for undisputed, executed works.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms settled legal principles and applies existing law regarding payment for admitted government works, notwithstanding procedural lapses in administrative approval.