C.W.P NO. 7244 0F 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 7244 0F 2009 DECIDED ON : 14.05.2009 R. R. Contractor ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Onkar Singh Batalavi, Advocate, for the petitioner. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. G. S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1. At the asking of the Court, he also accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2-Municipal Council. The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondents to release the payment along with interest for the work executed by him. The petitioner is stated to have executed the work assigned to him by the respondents, within the stipulated period and to the satisfaction of the authorities. Bill was also prepared and submitted by the petitioner. However, the due payment is not being released to the petitioner, despite moving representation dated 19.08.2008 (Annexure P-4). C.W.P NO. 7244 0F 2009 -2- It appears that the petitioner is entitled to be paid certain dues on account of the work executed by it. 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, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to settle the petitioner's account and whatever is found due, release the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, nothing shall preclude the State Government from taking disciplinary action, including recovery of the amount, from the Executive Officer of the respondent-Municipal Council, in case it is found that the tenders were floated or the work was allotted in violation of the Govt. Policy/Instructions. As regards the petitioner's claim for interest, the same cannot be effectively decided in these proceedings and the petitioner would be at liberty to recover the same, if so admissible, as per law. Disposed of. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned State counsel. MAY 14, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE C.W.P NO. 7244 0F 2009 -3-