COCP No. 241 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.7.2010 (i) COCP No. 241 of 2010 (O&M) Mahinder .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ….Respondents (ii) COCP No. 242 of 2010 (O&M) Devender Kumar .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 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? Present: Shri R.S. Hooda, Advocate, for Shri Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5. Shri Deepak Balyan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of COCP Nos. 241 and 242 of 2010, as both these petitions raise common question of law and facts. However, for facility of reference, facts are taken from COCP No.241 of 2010. COCP No. 241 of 2010 (O&M) [2] The petitioner- a contractor, invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court claiming payment of the work completed by him at the instance of the Municipal Council, Rohtak. This Court passed an order on 21.10.2009 directing the respondents to release admitted payment to the petitioner if there is no legal impediment, within three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which it was directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest on the amount due @ 8% p.a. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, an order has been passed by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, Rohtak, on 3.2.2010 to the effect that neither any work order was given by the competent authority nor any administrative approval was taken at any point of time before execution of the work. It was further found that the bills were prepared by the Contractor in connivance with the then Municipal Engineer, the then Junior Engineer, the then Executive Officer and the then Cashier. The petitioner controverts the reasoning given by the learned Executive Officer by filing rejoinder. The petitioner is claiming payment for the work performed. The respondents have denied their liability to make the payment. Such disputed questions of fact, cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in the present contempt petition not it can be said that the payment is admitted. Hence, both the petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, it shall be open to the petitioners to seek their remedy before the Civil Court, in accordance with law. [HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 30.7.2010 ds