IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2942 of 2008 Date of Decision: 19.08.2009 Satish Kumar Petitioner Versus The Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.D.K.Singhal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Mr.Arvind Seth, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr.Rajvir Singh Sihag, Advocate for respondent No.3 ….. Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) CM No.13781 of 2009 Application allowed, additional affidavit is taken on record. CWP No.2942 of 2008 This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that directions be issued to the respondents to release admitted payment of the petitioner, amounting to Rs.16,09,147/-. It is an admitted fact that during pendency of this writ petition, an amount of Rs.3,17,121/- was released in favour of the petitioner. Rest of the amount was detained on account of a fact that the petitioner failed to execute some work, which was allotted to him vide the contract agreement. Civil Writ Petition No.2942 of 2008 To say so, additional affidavit has been filed by Shri Yogesh Kumar, HCS Secretary of respondent No.1 alongwith letter dated 26.6.2009, written by General Manager, HARCO Bank to Executive Engineer, HAFED. Relevant portion of the letter reads thus:- “In this connection, it is submitted that the Bank vide letter No. Maint-II /2007-08/12405 dated 8.9.2007 has already informed the HAFED that a sum of Rs.3,81,839/- on account of construction of Category-I houses and a sum of Rs.680703/- on account of construction of Category-II houses have been made in excess of the contractor on the basis of final bill checked by the Architect (Photo copy enclosed for ready reference) In addition to the above, the contractor did not fix the M.S. Flat grills at site as required under DNIT. The same have been got fixed at site by the Bank on risk and cost of the contractor as decided by the Construction Sub Committee. On this job, extra expenditure of Rs.1293091/- had to be made by the Bank in excess of approved tendered cost which is also recoverable from the Contractor.” Above mentioned letter clearly indicates that there is a dispute regarding execution of the work. The petitioner states that fixing of grills was not his responsibility, as it was not part of the work order, granted to him. Mr.Arvind Seth, by making reference to the contract agreement, photocopy of which has been shown to the Court, states that fixing of grills was part of the contract agreement, allotted to the petitioner. If that is so, there is a serious dispute regarding facts, which can be sorted 2 Civil Writ Petition No.2942 of 2008 out only before the Arbitrator, which is so provided under the agreement between the parties. In view of facts mentioned above, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the parties to raise dispute as per terms and conditions of the contract agreement. Regarding grant of interest on the payment already released, the petitioner can also raise claim before the Arbitrator. 19.08.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 3