IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11810 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 08, 2010. Oasis Contractors and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. .....Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rajesh Kumar Girdhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Palvinder Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.Palvinder Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek counter-affidavit from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner is A-Class Government Contractor, who is stated to have executed various works assigned to it by the respondents from time to time. Relying upon some correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents, the petitioner submits that he is entitled to be paid Rs.33.45 lacs for the running bills submitted in the month of February, 2010 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Learned counsel for C.W.P.No .11810 of 2010 2 the petitioner further relies upon the contents of the letter/proceedings dated 24.3.2006 (Annexure P-1), wherein it is mentioned that the “Running Account Bills will be paid twice in a month instead of one payment.....” It, thus, 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 this regard, the petitioner is said to have sent a representation dated 9.6.2010 (Annexure P-7) to respondent No.4 but without any response thereto. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that whatever amount the petitioner has been found entitled to by the respondents, there can be no justification to with-hold the payment thereof. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to settle the petitioner's account and whatever is found due, including the refund of security, to release the same to him within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. As regards the petitioner's claim for interest, the same cannot be effectively adjudicated upon in these proceedings and the petitioner would be at liberty to recover the same, if so admissible, as per law. Disposed of. Dasti. July 08, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE