HAJI MOHAMMAD AKBAR SHEIKH AND ORS. vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT)

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR


WP(C) No. 2016/2022
Reserved on: 22.04.2026

Pronounced on: 05 .05.2026
Uploaded on: 06 .05.2026
Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced:

Full
CM No. 5049/2022



1. Haji Mohammad Akbar Sheikh

S/O Late Haji Abdul Ahad Sheikh,
Age 60 Years
2. Naseer Ahmad Malik


S/O Late Ghulam Mohammad Malik, Age
52 Years
3. Sonaullah Malik, S/O Fatah Malik ,


Age 70 Years
All Residents of Trehgam Kupwara

…. Petitioner(s)

Through:- Mr. Sheikh Mushtaq , Adv




VS.

1. Union Territory Of J And K And Kashmir

Through Commissioner Cum Secretary To
Govt. Tourism Department Civil Secretariat
Srinagar
2. Director Rural Development Department,



Kashmir Srinagar
3. District Development Commissioner,
Kupwara
4. Block Development Officer, Trehgam
5. Executive Engineer , Rew Wing Kupwara
6. Assistant Executive engineer, Rew Sub


Division, Trehgam Kupwara
7. Secretary Panchayat / Jr. Engineer ,Grs,
Panchayat Halqa Trehgam.

…..Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Bikramdeep Singh,
Dy.AG

WP(C) No. 2016/2022 Page 2 of 17






CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE

JUDGMENT


BRIEF FACTS
1. Through the medium of the instant writ petition, the petitioners seek
issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to
release the admitted amount of Rs. 24.99 lakhs in favour of the
petitioners on account of developmental works executed at Historic
Trehgam Spring, Block Trehgam, District Kupwara, under HEG,
13th Finance Commission and MGNREGA during the year 2018,
along with such other writ, order or direction as this Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they, being members of
the Elaquai Welfare Committee and inhabitants of the area, were
verbally directed by the official respondents, particularly
respondent No. 3, to execute the aforesaid works. Acting upon such
directions, the petitioners executed the works strictly in accordance
with the specifications and to the satisfaction of the respondents and
thereafter handed over the same.
3. It is pleaded that although the respondents released an amount of
Rs. 20 lakhs, the balance amount of Rs. 24.99 lakhs, constituting
the admitted liability, was illegally withheld without any
justification. According to the petitioners, several inter-
departmental communications issued by the respondents themselves
acknowledge the subsisting liability and request its clearance.

WP(C) No. 2016/2022 Page 3 of 17


4. Reference has been made to communication dated 27.10.2021
issued by the Block Development Officer, Trehgam, requesting the
Assistant Commissioner Development, Kupwara, for clearing the
liability in respect of the works executed by the petitioners;
communication dated 03.02.2022 issued by the office of the District
Development Commissioner, Kupwara asking the District
Panchayat Officer to explore the possibility of clearance of work-
done claims under overall savings of 14th Finance Commission
grants to the extent of Rs. 24.99 lakhs; and communication dated
24.02.2022 issued by the District Panchayat Officer, Kupwara,
again requesting clearance of the work-done claims.
5. It is further pleaded that the petitioners had raised loans from
different financial institutions for execution of the works with the
legitimate expectation that payment would be released upon
completion. However, due to continued withholding of the admitted
amount, the petitioners have suffered severe financial hardship and
have been compelled to pay interest on such borrowings. Repeated
representations made by the petitioners as well as by the inhabitants
of village Trehgam through the Welfare Committee failed to evoke
any response, constraining the petitioners to invoke the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners
6. Learned counsel Mr. Sheikh Manzoor appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the respondents have themselves admitted the
execution of works as well as the liability of Rs. 24.99 lakhs and,
therefore, no disputed question of fact survives for adjudication by

WP(C) No. 2016/2022 Page 4 of 17


this Court. It is contended that once the respondents have accepted
the completion of the works and have derived benefit therefrom,
withholding of payment becomes wholly arbitrary, unreasonable
and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. It is further argued that the petitioners executed the works on the
specific directions of the respondents and in the legitimate
expectation that the amount due would be released immediately
upon completion. The respondents, after having enjoyed the benefit
of the completed public works, cannot be permitted to deny lawful
dues to the petitioners on one pretext or the other.
8. Learned counsel submitted that the plea of non-availability of funds
is wholly untenable in law, inasmuch as financial constraints cannot
be pleaded by the State to defeat admitted liabilities. It is argued
that official communications as well as affidavits filed by the
respondents before this Court unequivocally establish that the
liability is admitted and subsisting, and therefore the only surviving
issue is enforcement of payment.
9. It is also submitted that the prolonged withholding of payment since
the year 2018 has caused grave prejudice to the petitioners, who had
borrowed money for execution of the work and are now facing
serious financial distress. Accordingly, it is prayed that a writ of
mandamus be issued directing immediate release of the admitted
amount along with time-bound compliance.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents
10. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, appearing for
the respondents, while not disputing the execution of the works or

WP(C) No. 2016/2022 Page 5 of 17


the subsisting liability, submitted that the delay in clearance of the
admitted amount is neither intentional nor deliberate. It is submitted
that the delay has occurred on account of non-availability of funds,
procedural constraints and the requirement of administrative
approvals at various levels.
11. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the personal affidavits filed
by the District Development Commissioner, Kupwara as well as the
Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Wing, Kupwara, wherein it
has been specifically stated that the writ petition pertains to
admitted work-done liabilities relating to development works
executed at Historic Trehgam Spring during the year 2018.
12. It is further submitted that directions have already been issued by
the competent authorities to the Assistant Commissioner
Development, Kupwara and Assistant Commissioner Panchayat,
Kupwara to explore the possibility of liquidation of the admitted
liability from available resources under the overall savings of
Finance Commission grants so as to avoid further delay and
compliance issues.
13. Learned counsel contended that there has been no willful or
deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by this Court and that
the respondents are making sincere efforts to arrange the necessary
funds and administrative approvals for liquidation of the liability. It
is thus urged that reasonable time may be granted to the
respondents for clearing the admitted amount in accordance with
rules.

WP(C) No. 2016/2022 Page 6 of 17


LEGAL ANALYSIS
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the
material on record.
15. At the outset, it is manifest that the petitioners claim to have
executed developmental works at Historic Trehgam Spring, Block
Trehgam, District Kupwara, pursuant to the administrative approval
accorded vide Order No. 486-DECK of 2018 dated 10.10.2018
under HEG, 13th Finance Commission and MGNREGA. The said
assertion has not been specifically denied by the respondents in
their pleadings. On the contrary, the material placed on record,
including the official communications and the affidavits filed on
behalf of the respondents, unequivocally demonstrates that the
execution of the works by the petitioners as well as the
corresponding liability arising therefrom stands admitted by the
official respondents themselves, thereby leaving no room for any
dispute with regard to the claim set up by the petitioner in the
present writ petition.
16. It is of considerable significance that the respondents, by their own
official record and conduct, have unequivocally acknowledged the
subsistence of liability in favour of the petitioners,. The official
communication dated 27.10.2021 issued by the Block Development
Officer, Trehgam, specifically sought clearance of the liability
arising out of the works executed by the petitioners. This was
followed by communication dated 03.02.2022 issued from the
office of the District Development Commissioner, Kupwara,
whereby the District Panchayat Officer, Kupwara was directed to

WP(C) No. 2016/2022 Page 7 of 17


explore the possibility of clearance of work-done claims to the
extent of Rs.24.99 lakhs under the overall savings of Finance
Commission grants. Yet again, vide communication dated
24.02.2022, the District Panchayat Officer, Kupwara reiterated the
request for clearance of the said liability. These inter-departmental
communications, leave no manner of doubt that the respondents
themselves have accepted not only the execution of the works by
the petitioners but also the subsisting liability payable in their
favour, and that the only impediment is release of the admitted
amount.
17. The aforesaid position stands further fortified by the affidavits filed
by the District Development Commissioner, Kupwara and the
Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Wing, Kupwara, wherein it
has been categorically stated that the present writ petition pertains
to “ non-clearance of admitted work-done liabilities.” Such a clear
and unequivocal admission on the part of the public authorities
leaves no scope for doubt regarding the existence of liability in
favour of petitioners.
18. Once it is established that the liability is admitted, the matter no
longer involves any disputed questions of fact . In such a situation,
this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, is fully empowered to intervene and ensure that the
admitted dues are released in a fair and timely manner.
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar
Singh and Others reported as (2021) 19 SCC 706 has held that:

WP(C) No. 2016/2022 Page 8 of 17


“26. It may be added that every case in which a
citizen/person knocks at the doors of the writ court for
breach of his or its fundamental rights is a matter
which contains a “public law element”, as opposed to
a case which is concerned only with breach of
contract and damages flowing therefrom. Whenever a
plea of breach of natural justice is made against the
State, the said plea, if found sustainable, sounds in
constitutional law as arbitrary State action, which
attracts the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India -
20. The grievance projected by the petitioners is not a mere contractual
dispute for recovery of money, but pertains to arbitrary withholding
of an admitted liability by State authorities. Such action, when
tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,
clearly falls within the domain of public law and is amenable to
judicial review under Article 226. The admitted position on record
demonstrates that despite acknowledgment of liability, the
respondents have failed to release the dues without any justifiable
cause. This conduct, in the considered view of this Court, is
arbitrary and unreasonable, thereby attracting the constitutional
mandate of fairness under Article 14.
21. This Court, in WP(C) 3061/2023 titled Mohd Ashraf vs UT of
J&K decided on 25.02.2026 has observed as under:
“This Court is of the considered view that the duty of the
State to pay for work executed and enjoyed is a
constitutional obligation flowing from Article 14, and
delay in seeking enforcement of such right cannot absolve
the State from its responsibility. Article 14 of the

WP(C) No. 2016/2022 Page 9 of 17


Constitution of India guarantees equality before the law
and equal protection of laws. The jurisprudence under
Article 14 has evolved far beyond formal equality; it now
encompasses the principle that State action, whether
legislative, executive, or contractual, must not be
arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. The Government,
when entering into contracts or dealing with contractors,
does not shed its constitutional obligations. Unlike a
private party, the State is bound to act as a model
litigant. Once the liability is admitted, such as when work
is duly executed, measured, and certified, the withholding
of the payment without justification amounts to arbitrary
action and thus falls foul of Article 14.”
22. Applying the aforesaid principle to the present case,this Court is of
considered opinion, once the State has taken benefit of the work and
admits the liability, it is under a constitutional obligation to ensure
timely payment. Failure to do so renders its action arbitrary and
unfair, thereby attracting the vice of Article 14 of the Constitution.
23. Withholding of the admitted amount in the present case is not
merely a breach of obligation but constitutes arbitrary State action,

which cannot be sustained in law . This Court, therefore, in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
proceeds to grant relief.
24. The next issue which falls for consideration is the justification put
forth by the respondents for withholding the admitted dues. The
respondents have sought to explain the delay on the grounds of non-
availability of funds, procedural constraints and requirement of
administrative approvals.

WP(C) No. 2016/2022 Page 10 of 17


25. It is well settled that, once the liability stands admitted, the
respondents are under a legal obligation to discharge the same
within a reasonable time. The plea of financial constraint or
pendency of administrative approvals cannot be permitted to defeat
an accrued and acknowledged right in favour of the petitioners.
26. In this regard, this Court in M/s Saint Solider Engineer and
Contractor Pvt. Ltd vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors, reported
as 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 972, wherein it has been held as under:
“20. It is well settled that execution of work gives rise
to a corresponding obligation upon the State to honour
its financial commitments. Any administrative approval
or availability of funds is a matter to be ensured by the
department prior to the allotment of work. After the
execution of the contract, no “post facto” objection can
be raised to deny or delay payment.
21. This Court is constrained to observe that in
numerous cases involving government contracts, despite
completion of work in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the contract, the payments due to
contractors are not released in a timely manner. The
delay is often attributed to administrative reasons, such
as the need for administrative approval or the alleged
paucity of funds or the funds being diverted to other
projects to frustrate the claim of the contractors. In the
present case as well, despite admitted liability and due
completion of work by the petitioner well in time the
payment has been unjustifiably withheld for a
considerable period of time .
27. In the present matter, the respondents, after having permitted
execution of the works and having admittedly derived benefit

WP(C) No. 2016/2022 Page 11 of 17


therefrom, cannot now be heard to contend that payment cannot be
released on account of administrative constraints or non-availability
of funds.
28. It is well-settled principle of law that the State cannot withhold
legitimate and admitted dues on the plea of paucity of funds, such a
defence being wholly untenable. Further, partial discharge of
liability does not absolve the respondents of their obligation to clear
the remaining amount. Once the liability stands admitted, it is
incumbent upon the respondents to liquidate the same, and part
payment thereof cannot be a justification for withholding the
amount due.
29. In the considered opinion of this Court, the obligation to arrange
funds and obtain necessary approvals lies squarely upon the State
authorities prior to entrusting the work. Once the work is executed
and the liability stands admitted, any delay in release of payment on
such grounds is wholly unjustified.
30. Accordingly, this Court holds that the action of the respondents in
withholding the payment is arbitrary and contrary to settled
principles of law, and cannot be sustained.
31. The petitioners have further pleaded that they had raised loans for
execution of the works and are burdened with repayment
obligations along with interest liabilities. The prolonged non-release
of the admitted amount has exposed them to serious financial
hardship.

WP(C) No. 2016/2022 Page 12 of 17


32. In the considered view of this Court, such a situation cannot be
countenanced, particularly when the liability itself stands admitted
by the respondents. The petitioners, having undertaken and
completed public works at the instance of the State, cannot be left
to suffer financial hardships on account of inaction or delay on the
part of the authorities. The consequences of such delay have a direct
bearing on the livelihood and economic stability of the petitioners.
33. The State, being a welfare State governed by the rule of law , is
under a constitutional obligation to act in a fair, reasonable and
responsible manner. It is expected to act in a manner which
safeguards, rather than jeopardizes, the economic security of its

citizen.
34. The plea of the respondents that the matter is under consideration or
that steps are being taken to arrange funds does not advance their
case. Once the liability is admitted, the same cannot be kept in
abeyance indefinitely on the ground of internal administrative
processes. Such internal procedures cannot override the legal rights
which have already crystallized in favour of the petitioners.
35. Further, this Court in M/s Lumber India Corporation v. UT of
J&K WP(C) No. 733/2023, decided on 10.04.2026), wherein it
was once again emphasized that the State cannot withhold admitted
dues for works executed and enjoyed, on the pretext of
administrative constraints or paucity of funds, and that such action
would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. For the facility of reference same is reproduced as under:

WP(C) No. 2016/2022 Page 13 of 17


“It must be emphasized that once the State has availed
the benefit of work executed, it is under a corresponding
obligation both legal and constitutional to ensure timely
payment. Any failure in this regard strikes at the core of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which mandates
fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness in State
action.
In these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate
not only to grant relief to the petitioner but also to
reiterate, that the State must put in place an effective
mechanism to ensure that admitted dues are released
without compelling parties to seek judicial redress.”
36. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the State derives
benefit from the work executed at its instance, a corresponding duty
arises to discharge the financial liability in a timely manner. Failure
to do so not only amounts to breach of obligation but also renders
the action of the respondents arbitrary and unreasonable, thereby
violative of Article 14.
37. This Court is of the view that parties should not be compelled to
approach the Court for release of admitted due. Despite clear
acknowledgment of liability, the petitioners have been constrained
to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
38. Recently, this Court has reiterated the aforesaid position in Bhat
Traders VS UT of J&K WP(C) No. 3445/2023, decided on
16.04.2026 wherein it was once again emphasized that the State
cannot withhold admitted dues for works executed and enjoyed, on
the pretext of administrative constraints or paucity of funds, and
that such action would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the

WP(C) No. 2016/2022 Page 14 of 17


Constitution of India. For the facility of reference same is
reproduced as under:
“In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the action of the respondents in
withholding the admitted dues of the petitioner is arbitrary,
unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. The preliminary objections raised by the
respondents, both with regard to maintainability as well as
on merits, do not withstand judicial scrutiny and are
accordingly rejected. The material on record clearly
establishes that the petitioner has executed the works, the
respondents have derived benefit therefrom, and the liability
stands acknowledged. In such circumstances, the continued
withholding of payment is wholly unjustified and cannot be
sustained in law. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that
the State and its instrumentalities are expected to act as
model litigant and uphold the highest standards of fairness.
Permitting the respondents to deny admitted dues on the
pretext of internal procedural lapses or paucity of funds
would strike at the very root of the rule of law .”

39. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the State has derived
benefit from the works executed at its instance, a corresponding
obligation arises to discharge the financial liability within a
reasonable time. Any failure to do so, particularly in view of the
0admitted liability, not only constitutes a breach of obligation but
also renders the action of the respondents arbitrary and
unreasonable.
40. This Court is also of the considered view that the conduct of the
respondents amounts to unjust enrichment. The respondents have

WP(C) No. 2016/2022 Page 15 of 17


utilized the works executed by the petitioners for public benefit, yet
have failed to compensate them. Retention of such benefit without
payment is impermissible and contrary to settled principles of
equity and justice.
41. This court finds that the present case is a clear instance of arbitrary
withholding of admitted dues by the State authorities. The
respondents, by their own admissions, have acknowledged the
liability, yet have failed to discharge the same on untenable
grounds.
CONCLUSION
42. In view of the aforesaid and for the reasons recorded hereinabove,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have
established a clear, subsisting and enforceable right to the amount
claimed, which stands duly acknowledged by the respondents
themselves. The continued withholding of the admitted dues,
despite such acknowledgment, is wholly unjustified and cannot be
sustained in law.
43. The action of the respondents, tested on the touchstone of fairness,
reasonableness and non-arbitrariness, is manifestly arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The
explanations sought to be advanced on the grounds of
administrative constraints and non-availability of funds do not
constitute a valid defence and cannot be permitted to defeat the
accrued rights of the petitioners.

WP(C) No. 2016/2022 Page 16 of 17


44. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioners, having
executed public works at the instance of the State, have been
constrained to approach this Court for release of their admitted
dues. Such a situation not only causes undue hardship to the
petitioners but also undermines the obligation of the State to act as a
fair and responsible authority.
45. In a system governed by the rule of law, the State is expected to
honour its commitments with promptitude and fairness. Delay in
discharge of admitted liabilities erodes public confidence and
strikes at the very foundation of administrative accountability.
46. Accordingly, this Court holds that the withholding of the admitted
amount by the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable and legally
unsustainable, warranting interference in exercise of writ
jurisdiction.
47. In the light of what has been discussed hereinabove and also in
view of the settled position of law laid down by this Court, the
instant writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to
consider the case of the petitioner for the release of the admitted
liability in favour of the petitioner to the tune of ₹24.99 lakhs
within a period of four (04) weeks from the date a copy of this
order along with writ petition and annexures are made available to
respondents. It is made clear, failing such compliance within the
stipulated period, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6%
per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date the said amount

WP(C) No. 2016/2022 Page 17 of 17


was due and not paid by respondent. The writ petition is disposed
of, along with all connected application.



(Wasim Sadiq Nargal)
Judge


Srinagar:

05.05.2026
Shamim/PS


Whether the order is speaking : No/Yes
Whether approved for reporting : No/Yes