MUFTI MOHSIN SHABIR vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (TOURISM)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 31.08.2026
Pronounced on: 10.09.2026
Uploaded on: 10.09.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
WP(C) No.2812/2025
MUFTI MOHSIN SHABIR
...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S)
Through: - Ms. Arifa Jan, Sr. Advocate, with
Ms. Momina Aslam, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K & ORS.
…RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Hakeem Aman Ali, Dy. AG.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the
th
order dated 4 August, 2025, and for commanding the
respondents to release the amount of Rs.4,37,565/- along
with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date
the payment became due till the final payment.
2) The petitioner had earlier filed WP(C) No.992/2025 for
similar relief, which, however, came to be disposed of in
th
terms of order dated 5 May, 2025, whereby the
respondents were directed to treat the said petition as
representation and accord consideration to the claim of the
petitioner in conformity with the rules.

2 WP(C) No.2812/2025
th

3) Pursuant to the order dated 5 May, 2025, order
th
dated 4 August, 2025, came to be passed by the
respondents, whereby the claim of the petitioner for release
of the amount has been rejected on the ground that the
works had been allotted unauthorizedly and without
complying with codal formalities. It is also stated that the
work in question does not satisfy the requirements of the
th
circular dated 26 April, 2021 issued by the Department of
Finance.
4)
The petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the
ground that once the respondents have admitted the
execution of works and made substantial payment, they
cannot arbitrarily deny the balance payment. It is also
th
contended that the circular dated 26 April, 2021, was
issued much after completion of the work and, as such, the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5)
The respondents have come up with response, stating
therein that the petitioner was allotted two works directly
on "job order basis", without following the codal formalities,
such as tendering, availability of funds, etc., by the then
Management of the Corporation, which is in violation of
Rule 139 of the General Financial Rules, 2017. Out of the
two works for Rs.13,15,320/, an amount of Rs.8,77,753/-
stands already released in favour of the petitioner by the

3 WP(C) No.2812/2025
then Management and an amount of Rs.4,37,565/- is still
pending. The respondents have objected to the claim of the
petitioner on the similar grounds as mentioned in the order
impugned, i.e. the codal formalities were not followed and
the works were allotted without having been properly
budgeted. The respondents have also placed on record the
th
circular of the Department of Finance dated 26 April,
2021, to assert that the petitioner is not entitled to any
relief.
6)
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the record produced by the J&K Tourism
Development Corporation Limited.
7) The record depicts that an amount of Rs.4,37,565/- is
yet to be paid to the petitioner. The respondents are denying
their liability on the ground of non-compliance of codal
formalities and allotment of the work to the petitioner
without tendering. The respondents have admitted the
execution of the works by the petitioner and the record
produced by the respondents demonstrates that the
amount of Rs.4,37,565/-, as claimed by the petitioner, is
still outstanding. Once the works were allotted to the
petitioner, the respondents cannot take refuge under the
non-compliance of the codal formalities and non-tendering
of the work in question, to deny the legitimate amount due

4 WP(C) No.2812/2025
to the petitioner. In Union Territory of J&K and ors. vs.
Sanjeev Kumar (LPA No.137/2020 decided on
23.02.2021), the Division Bench of this Court has held as
under:
09. The enquiry reports mentioned above on
which the appellants seek to place reliance
today was never placed before the writ Court
and was not a part of the writ Court record.
Even the objections filed by the Planning
Department as also the J&K Housing Board do
not suggest that there was any apprehension
in the mind of the Planning Department or the
Housing Board with regard to the manner in
which the contracts stood allotted to the
petitioner/respondent herein. While it may be
true that certain codal formalities might not
have been followed before the allotment of the
contract in favour of the respondent herein,
yet the Government as also the Housing Board
permitted not only the allotment of contract
but also its completion at the relevant point of
time.
10. The petitioner who was allotted the
contract by the Housing Board cannot be
expected to first verify as to whether the
contract that has been allotted to him was
being executed within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Housing Board or not, nor
was he expected to refuse the execution of the
work simply because the subject matter of the
work was not put to open tendering system.
Needless to say that the contractor did
execute the works upon being allotted to him
for which some amount is certainly due to
him.”
8) In view of the above, the present petition is allowed
and the impugned order dated 04.08.2025 is quashed and
the respondents are directed to release the outstanding
amount of Rs.4,37,565/ (Rupees four lakhs thirty-seven

5 WP(C) No.2812/2025
thousand five hundred sixty-five) in favour of the petitioner
along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of filing of this petition till the amount is paid to the
petitioner.
9) The record be returned to learned counsel for the
respondents.
(Rajnesh Oswal)
Judge

Srinagar,
10.09.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secretary”
Whether the judgment is reportable: NO