M/S Baba Enterprises vs. Sher I Kashmir Institute Of Medical Sciences And Ors.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had submitted a representation on October 19, 2022, which had not been addressed. The petitioner's counsel then submitted that they would be satisfied if the writ petition was treated as a representation and considered by the respondents within a reasonable period, taking into account the averments and documents on record, particularly the certificate dated December 19, 2024. The respondents' counsel stated they were not averse to this course of action. Consequently, the Court directed respondents 1 to 4 to treat the writ petition as a representation and consider it within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, writ petition, and annexures. Due weightage was to be given to the certificate dated December 19, 2024. The consideration order was to be forwarded to the petitioner via registered post. The Court did not decide on the entitlement to the balance amount or interest on merits, but disposed of the petition based on the parties' consent to treat it as a representation.

Facts

M/s Baba Enterprises (the petitioner) filed a writ petition seeking the release of a balance payment of Rs. 38,30,080/- for the supply, installation, testing, and commissioning of DG sets at SKIMS Soura. The petitioner claims to have completed the work as per the allotment order and submitted tax invoices, including GST. The total allotted cost was Rs. 1,14,55,500/-, and Rs. 76,25,420/- has been released, leaving a balance of Rs. 38,30,080/-. The petitioner had previously made a representation to the respondents on October 19, 2022, which remained unaddressed. The petitioner also sought interest on the delayed payment. A certificate dated December 19, 2024, from the Executive Engineer confirmed the successful execution and commissioning of the work.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of the balance payment of Rs. 38,30,080/- along with interest, considering the successful completion of the work as evidenced by the certificate dated December 19, 2024, and the terms of the allotment order. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they had fully complied with the terms and conditions of the allotment order, successfully completed the work, and submitted the requisite bills including GST. They relied on the certificate issued by the Executive Engineer confirming the completion and proper functioning of the DG sets. They contended that there was no legal impediment to the release of the balance amount. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents did not file a formal reply. However, the learned GA appearing for SKIMS stated that they were not averse to the disposal of the petition at that stage or to the prayer made by the petitioner's counsel.