Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Dec 15: The High Court said it is the responsibility of the department to clarify the work executed by a contractor in absence of approvals and directed to clear outstanding amount to the contractor within six weeks.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri said the petitioner-contractor having expended the money after availing loan facility from the bank is entitled to be paid for the work he has done and he cannot be deprived of the admitted liability on the premise that the department is short of funds.
“In view of this legal principle the court ordered the respondents to clear the outstanding amount along with interest at 6% per annum within six weeks, underscoring the importance of fulfilling contractual obligations in a timely manner”, the court directed.
The court has emphasized that it is not the job of a contractor to ensure that all administrative approvals, technical sanctions, or legal formalities are completed before undertaking contractual obligation and it is the responsibility of the concerned department to clarify how work was executed in the absence of requisite approvals or sanctions.
” A contractor while executing a work, duly allotted to him, proceeds with the execution on the firm belief and expectation that work is being executed by him at the instance of respondents after due approval. It is for the concerned department to explain as to how the work came to be executed in the absence of requisite approvals or sanctions”, the court added.
The construction company had filed a petition seeking the payment of an outstanding amount which was due for work completed under various Government contracts and despite completing the work within stipulated timeline, received partial payment from the concerned department..
The court pointed out that while it was claimed the petitioner had executed work “in excess” of the original contract without administrative approval, evidence submitted by the petitioner confirmed that the work had been ratified and acknowledged by the department. Moreover, despite repeated confirmations from the respondents regarding the admitted liability, the payment was withheld, citing a lack of funds.
The court turned down arguments by the other side that the petitioner-contractor was responsible for the department’s failure to obtain proper approvals, noting that the petitioner had proceeded with the work based on the belief that all formalities were duly completed by the Government.
The court said that contractors should not be penalized for the administrative lapses of the concerned departments, particularly when their work was executed in good faith and to the satisfaction of the authorities.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
