Waseem Sajad And Ors vs Iqbal Khandey And Ors

In terms of order dated 22.07.2013 the writ petition out of which instant contempt petition has arisen has been disposed of by directing the respondents to accord consideration to release of all amount due to the petitioners in light of the averments made in the petition and annexures appended and of course in accordance with the rules governing the writ, in relation to the claim alleged by the petitioners that they have served as mates in District Doda and that the amount admitted to be due to them is not released without any justifiable cause.

Statement of facts has been filed by the respondents, wherein it is being contended that well before the disposal of the petition in terms of order dated 22.07.2013, a Committee of Officers of the Department had been constituted for physical verification of quality and quantity of works claimed to have been executed by the petitioners. It is being contended that the said Committee despite putting strenuous efforts have neither located the original record of the said works in the office of Assistant Commissioner Development Doda or Block Development Officer Bhagwa nor the executed works have been traced out to have been physically executed on ground. It is being further contended that in view thereof, the Chairman of the Committee requested the BDO Bhagwa to direct all the petitioners to be available at Block Head Quarter in connection with the physical verification of works in question. It is being further stated that instead of 17 petitioners 14 appeared on the scheduled date wherein they stated that they cannot presently verify the said works executed by them owing to the damages caused to the said works by heavy rain.

It is being stated that in view of the aforesaid position a period of 1½ month was provided to them to repair the works in question and to get them physically verified by the committee members. The petitioners are, however stated to have failed get the said works identified to the said Committee. It is being further stated that in the meanwhile, the order 22.07.2013 (supra) came to be received by respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 accordingly vide his communication dated 23.10.2013, directed the respondent, No.4 -Assistant Commissioner Development Doda to implement the direction in letter and submit the action taken report. It is further contended that the report of the Committee had been received by respondent No. 4 vide communication dated 19.10.2013, where under the Committee had made the following observations:-

"In the backdrop of above letters and reminder under way the pressure to come forward nor any type of feed back has been received by the committee, the committee feel concerned to submit the final report on the pretext that the work done claimed by contractors has nothing to say in this regard despite repeated requests they neither came the alleged work traceable/identifiable as per their request nor appear before the committee. As it was not possible for the committee to identify the works why their cooperation and physical verification thereafter as the works were executed during the year 2008-09."

The respondents in the statement of facts have thus contended that based upon the aforesaid factual position a detailed consideration order bearing No. ACDD/Court/29/2013-14/13167 dated 06.11.2013 came to be issued rejecting the claims of the petitioners being fake/false.

Prima facie the order passed by this Court appears to have been complied with requiring the respondents to accord consideration to the claims of the petitioners for release of all the amount due to the petitioners in the light of averments made by the petitioner and the annexure appended thereto, in that, the respondents have denied the works alleged to have been executed by the petitioners and despite affording an opportunity petitioners have failed get the alleged works identified to the said Committee.

In the aforesaid backdrop since the claim of the petitioners is being denied by the respondents inasmuch a detailed order issued thereof, the contempt proceedings are therefore, required to be closed. Accordingly, proceedings in this contempt petition are closed. It shall, however remain open to the petitioners to work out their remedy against the consideration order issued by the respondents in accordance with law, if aggrieved and so advised.