IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16027 of 2009 Date of decision: 21st October, 2009 Devender Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Pawan Khattak, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to release the payment along with interest for the work executed by the petitioner. Petitioner has alleged that he was engaged as a Contractor by respondent No. 4 and he had completed the work to the satisfaction of respondent No.4. Petitioner has submitted bills regarding material used and labour deployed Counsel for the petitioner submits that the work was executed to the satisfaction of the Municipal Council, Rohtak, respondent No.4 and that the final bills, which were prepared, have been approved by the concerned officers of the Municipal Council, as the entries were made in the Measurement Book. Learned counsel further contends that due payment has not been made to the petitioner by the authorities, despite the legal notice (Annexure P-3) issued on 7th March, 2009. To fortify his submission, learned counsel relies upon judgments (Annexure P-1 and P- 2). Civil Writ Petitions No.16027 of 2009 Issue notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Copy of the petition has been supplied to him. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition can be disposed of by issuing directions to the respondents to release admitted payment to the petitioner, if there is no legal impediment, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest on the amount due at the rate of 8% per annum. The interest shall be calculated from the date of amount due till the final payment is made. In case respondents find that the petitioner is not entitled to the payment, they may pass a speaking order detailing the grounds on which the petitioner is not entitled to the payment. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 21, 2009 rps 2