IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13238 of 2007 Date of Decision: 17.08.2009 M/s Tirath Singh and sons Petitioner Versus Union of India and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Kanwaljeet Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.Harinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the respondents ….. Jasbir Singh, J. Through this writ petition, the petitioner prays that payment due to it be released against the final bill, presented by it on completion of the work allotted to it. As per facts on file, the petitioner entered into a contract with the respondents on 28.4.2005, for providing and laying blanketing material on railway line between Mirthal to Chakki Bank stations on Jalandhar- Pathankot- Jammu Tawi Railway Track. The petitioner completed the work job in the month of November 2006. Entries regarding work done were made, by officers of the respondents, in the measurement book. The double rail track, for which, work was allotted to the petitioner, became operational on 23.2.2007. Final bill for an amount of Rs.3,84,853/- was passed, after due verification of the job done, on 13.3.2007. Tax Deduction Certificate for the period from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2007 was also issued. Tax amount was Civil Writ Petition No.13238 of 2007 deducted from the final bill payment. The petitioner wrote a letter for release of the payment towards that bill, refund of security deposit, earnest money etc. on 8.8.2007. Thereafter, many requests were made, however, nothing was done. Hence, this writ petition. Upon notice, reply has been filed by the respondents, wherein, it has been stated that writ petition, inviting decision on contractual obligation between the parties, is not competent. It was further stated that the petitioner had failed to complete the work within the stipulated period and on account of that, payment has been stopped. Counsel for the parties heard. At the time of arguments before this Court, counsel for the respondents, by making reference to averments made in paragraph No.9 of the written statement, argued that the amount cannot be released to the petitioner because work order, which was allotted to a sister concern of the petitioner, namely, M/s T.S. S.A. Associates was terminated and dispute is pending, for settlement of accounts regarding that work. Averments made in paragraph No.9 read thus:- “That the averments made in para 9 of the writ petition it is submitted that the final bill for Rs.13,84,853/- was passed and kept in deposit, as an other work under this unit being executed by M/s T.S.S.A. Associates, Gurdaspur road, Pathankot was terminated vide VE/C/NW/DLI letter No.74- W/1/1/358/WA/PTK dated 18.7.2007 in which Sh.Inderjit Singh partner of M/s Tirath Singh & Sons, Gurdaspur Road, Pathankot is also a partner. Hence the 10% security deducted from contractor’s on account bills amounting to Rs.8,00,149/- DR No.138961 dated 18.11.2004 for Rs.50,000/- of Punjab & 2 Civil Writ Petition No.13238 of 2007 Sind Bank, Pathankot and Bank Guarantee No.02/05 dated 26.5.2005 for Rs.2,50,000/- was also not released as per Clause 52 & 52-A of General Conditions of Contract-1999.” At the time of arguments, it was virtually admitted before this Court that so far as completion of contract agreement for which amount, in dispute, is being claimed by the petitioner, is concerned, the same stood completed, final bill has been passed and no defect has been indicated in the work done by it. Main stress, to stop payment, is regarding dispute pending with a sister concern of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that on that score, payment cannot be stopped. At the time of arguments, it was noticed by this Court that sister concern of the petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the J & K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, against the respondents, with a prayer that the respondents be restrained from acting upon the notice, regarding balance earth work and blanketing etc., to get that work conducted at the risk and cost of the applicant in that case. Above said application was decided by the competent Court vide order dated 30.1.2009, wherein it was specifically observed that delay in execution of the work, was not due to the applicant in that case, rather delay was caused on account of apathy and non-co-operation shown by the respondents. The respondents were directed to get the work executed through some other agency but not at the risk and cost of the applicant in that case, till such time, dispute is determined by the Arbitrator. As per admitted position, the matter is going on before the Arbitrator. If that is so, especially, in view of the finding given by the competent Court regarding sister concern of the petitioner, as 3 Civil Writ Petition No.13238 of 2007 mentioned above, the authorities are not justified to detain amount of the petitioner against the work executed by it. In view of facts mentioned above, the respondents are directed to release amount due to the petitioner, including security and payment due for work etc, within a period of one month from today. To safeguard interest of the respondents, above mentioned amount is ordered to be released on furnishing surety by the petitioner of immoveable property, which should be free from all encumbrances. Value of the immoveable property should be 20% more than the amount to be released to the petitioner. The petitioner through its partner shall also file an undertaking that till such time dispute is decided by the Arbitrator regarding claim, for and against sister concern of the petitioner, it shall not create any third party right in the property offered as surety to the respondents. With above mentioned observes, this writ petition stands disposed of. 17.08.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 4