IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.21987 of 2010 Date of decision: 09.12.2010 Jaswant Rai Verma. -----Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Aman Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of proceedings before Standing Empowered Committee constituted in terms of contract for maintenance of a road in district Ropar between the petitioner and PWD Department of the Punjab Government. 2. Case of the petitioner is that vide letter dated 30.6.2005, the petitioner was awarded the work in question but the department withheld payment to the extent of `47,49,212/-. In terms of mechanism for resolution of dispute provided in the contract, a reference was made to respondent No.3 who gave award dated 22.10.2008, holding the petitioner to be entitled to `30,23,968/- with interest. Vide letter dated 1.8.2009, the C.W.P. No.21987 of 2010 petitioner gave his consent for appointment of a technical expert in the appellate body but appeal itself was filed by the department only on 27.9.2010 i.e. after more than one year of consent being given by the petitioner. Since time period for decision of the appeal was 90 days, no action having been taken on petitioner’s letter dated 1.8.2009 for about eight months, the petitioner filed a suit on 27.4.2010 and after filing written statement dated 9.9.2010 in the said suit, the appeal was filed. In the circumstances, the appeal was not only belated but malafide to deprive the petitioner of his remedy in the suit. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. It is not disputed that under the relevant provisions of the agreement, there is no time period for filing of the appeal. Even then, the appeal is expected to be filed within a reasonable time. In the present case, the appeal has been filed almost after two years of the award and more than one year of the consent of the petitioner for appointment of an expert and that too after filing the suit. This may leave much to be desired and the petitioner may be justified in having filed suit presuming that no appeal was intended to be filed, but question is whether the remedy of the department in appeal should be scuttled in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is not disputed that the petitioner can have his legal remedy even against the order which may be passed in appeal. Thus, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to him. In these circumstances, we refrain from 2 C.W.P. No.21987 of 2010 interfering at this stage, without expressing any opinion on merits including the contention of the petitioner that appeal should not be entertained after long delay and after filing of the suit, which question can be raised before the appellate forum itself. 6. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 09, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) ashwani JUDGE 3