Srinagar: ‘Only Almighty can Save us’, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh said after recording lackadaisical approach of government authorities in implementation of court orders.
The court of Sanjeev Kumar noted that for more than eight years, respondents have failed to pay due payments to one Ghulam Hassan Wani for the execution of work for Wular-Manasbal Development Authority despite admitting that the claim of petitioner is genuine and fair.
“If this is the state of affairs and this is how the citizens are treated by the state, only Almighty can save us,” Justice Kumar recorded.
The court with a painful expression observed that the respondents have no respect for the court orders and even in cases in which the claim of the petitioners is admitted, respondents take years to make the payment despite there being directions from this court to do so in a time bound manner.
It was pointed out that the present case is a quintessential of the manner in which the authorities at the helm of affairs are acting.
Justice Kumar noted that it is not understandable as to why the Wular-Manasbal Development Authority and other departments of the government invite tenders and get the works executed by the contractors when they have no money to discharge their liabilities.
“Isn’t it a case of running the government with the money of the people?,’ he questioned.
The court said that as it may, shifting of responsibility by the respondent authority to the administrative department cannot be an excuse to delay the payment which is admittedly due to the petitioner.
“Let the Commissioner/Secretary, Tourism Department, take note of the observations made and release the requisite funds as demanded by the CEO, Wular-Manasbal Development Authority, within a period of four weeks so that the admitted payment of the petitioner is released,” Justice Kumar directed.
The Court made it clear that if the needful is not done, the Commissioner/Secretary, Tourism Department and the CEO, Wular-Manasbal Development Authority, shall appear before the court on the next date of hearing to answer the charge of contempt.
It again listed the case on October 20.