Jammu, Aug 06: In CCP(S) No. 77/2023 in OWP No. 405/2019 titled Mohd. Sadiq vs Inderjeet, Commissioner Secy., District Development Dev. Commissioner, Poonch and Ors after hearing HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE ORDERED as under:-
1. In terms of order dated 29.09.2022, following directions were issued: “Respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for release of the amount of Rs. 7.75 lacs along with interest as may have accrued thereof claimed to have been incurred by the petitioner upon execution of road repairing work under PMGSY SubDivision Mendhar within a period of six weeks from the date copy of this order along with copy of writ petition is submitted before the respondents.
The respondents in the process shall follow rules and regulations occupying the field.” 2. Thus, it is evident that the respondents were to follow rules and regulations occupying the field while considering the claim of the petitioner. In earlier compliance report dated 04.09.2023 filed by the Executive Engineer, PMGSY Division-Mendhar, the claim of the Serial No. 82 2 CCP(S) No. 77/2023 petitioner was rejected on the ground that formalities as required under rule were not completed.
Another compliance report filed by the District Development Commissioner stating therein that the Executive Engineer, PMGSY, Mendhar vide his letter dated 04.08.2017, requested the answering respondents for release of funds to the tune of Rs. 7.75 lacs under SDRF.
The matter was examined in the Office and as per SDRF guidelines, the funds under SDRF can be utilized only for temporary restoration of public infrastructure.
Accordingly, the Executive Engineer was informed that the roads for which he has claimed the release of fund were not through for traffic in the year 2014-15 but were under construction at that time.
So the question of temporary restoration of the said road does not arise and the expenditure whatsoever made on those roads was required to be met out of construction cost and, accordingly, the Executive Engineer was directed to make the payments out of the funds available under the project sanctioned cost and clear the liabilities whatsoever are pending.
3. In terms of order dated 18.11.2024, District Development Commissioner, Jammu and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were directed to sit together so as to ensure compliance of the order passed by this Court and pursuant thereto, a meeting was conducted under Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Poonch and the claim of the petitioner for release of funds of Rs. 7.75 lacs, was rejected by respondent No. 2 on the same grounds, as were rejected by this Court earlier.
The petitioner cannot be left high and dry just because that the respondents are shifting liability upon each other and ultimately denying the amount due to the petitioner.
4. Prima facie, this court is of the considered view that the respondents are wilfully defying the order passed by this Court.
5. Registry to issue notice to all the respondents for their personal appearance and to show-cause why they should not be proceeded for committing contempt of the Court.
6. List on 17.08.2026.
|