AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 213 wordsSurya Kant, J.—The Petitioner is an A-Class Government Contractor who is said to have been allotted the works by the Respondents for raising the capacity of Raunta Rajbaha RD 102620 to 116370 (Slice RD 102620 to 107500) vide Works Order No. 13 dated 8.11.2008. The Petitioner avers that the alleged works have been executed by him to the entire satisfaction of the authorities and thereafter, final bills have been submitted in December, 2008. It is alleged that despite the representation made by the Petitioner on 26.7.2010 (Annexure P-2), the Respondents have failed to release the payment to the Petitioner for the admitted works executed by him.
Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and considering the nature of relief sought in this writ petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the same with a direction to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider and dispose of the the afore-mentioned claim of the Petitioner contained in his representation dated 26.7.2010 (Annexure P-2) by passing a speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that if the Petitioner is found entitled to any payment, the same shall also be released to him within the stipulated period.
Ordered accordingly.