Court rules inability to verify claims due to passage of time and lack of records, dismisses petition citing no apparent malafides by the government
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of contractors from Jammu & Kashmir who sought payment for work completed decades ago. The Division Bench, comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, upheld the decision of a learned Single Judge, citing the unavailability of records and the absence of any malafides by the government as the basis for their judgment.
The appellants, registered contractors from Jammu & Kashmir, claimed they were owed payments for construction works undertaken before their migration to Delhi in 1989 due to the adverse law and order situation in the Kashmir valley. Despite numerous representations to the Government of Jammu & Kashmir for the clearance of dues, their claims went unheeded, prompting them to file a writ petition in 2001, which was dismissed in 2010.
The court highlighted that the claims pertained to works completed over two decades ago, with the complete records unavailable due to personnel changes and the passage of time. The appellants argued that the refusal to honor their claims was retaliatory, following a contempt petition filed by them; however, the court found no evidence of malafide intentions by the government.
The High Court acknowledged the difficult circumstances leading to the appellants' migration but emphasized that the delay in filing the petition and the inability to substantiate the claims with available records were critical factors in its decision. The court asserted that it could not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution when records were missing, and no malafide actions were evident.
Despite the appellants receiving a partial payment of Rs. 32,200, the court ruled that this did not imply the availability of complete records. The judges concluded that the absence of records, coupled with a lack of evidence of government wrongdoing, justified the dismissal of the writ petition.
The decision underscores the challenges faced by individuals seeking redress for historical claims, particularly when documentation is lacking. The court's judgment reinforces the principle that judicial intervention is limited in cases where factual verification is impeded by the passage of time.
Bottom Line:
Payment of dues for work done by contractors - Claims arising out of work done decades ago - Court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution when records are unavailable due to passage of time.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
J.L Wali v. Union of India, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2887138
