Re-Routed Power Line: Raj HC Orders Payment With 6% Interest

Power Line Re-Routed After Air Force Objection: Rajasthan High Court Orders Payment to Contractor With 6% Interest

Published: 27 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur directed the Jodhpur power distribution company to pay a contractor within six weeks for an underground 11 KV line that grew from about 1 km to about 3 km after the Air Force objected to the original route (paras 2, 6). The respondents could not dispute that the Supreme Court's M/s Surya Constructions decision covered the claim (para 4). As the work was completed in 2023 and left unpaid for nearly three years, the amount carries 6% annual interest (para 7).

Key holdings

The line grew from about 1 km to about 3 km when the route was revised after the Air Force's objection, raising the cost from Rs. 10,13,981.50 to Rs. 24,49,458.90 (para 2).

The respondents could not dispute that M/s Surya Constructions covered the claim (para 4).

The representation remedy under Condition No. 43 of the work order did not prevent the Court from disposing of the petition in M/s Surya Constructions' terms (paras 4, 6).

Payment must be made within six weeks, with interest at 6% per annum, because the work completed in 2023 went unpaid for nearly three years (paras 6-7).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner firm erects electricity lines. On a tender of 2 August 2022, it received a work order on 18 May 2023 for a new 1 km 11 KV underground line, at a tender amount of Rs. 10,13,981.50 (para 2). During execution, the Air Force objected to the line passing through the defence area. The respondents issued a revised 'G' Schedule on 14 June 2023 and directed a revised route about 2 km longer, raising the cost to Rs. 24,49,458.90 (para 2). After completion, payment for the additional 2 km was not released despite representations; official note-sheets observed that only 50% of the original tender amount could be granted (para 2). The petitioner sought payment with interest (para 1).

Court's Findings

The respondents were not in a position to dispute that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's order of 8 March 2019 in M/s Surya Constructions v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 16 SCC 794; their objection was that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of a representation under Condition No. 43 of the work order (para 4). Having considered both sides, and in view of M/s Surya Constructions, the Court disposed of the writ petition in the same terms (para 6). It did not send the petitioner to the representation remedy; it directed the respondents to make the necessary payment within six weeks of the order (para 6). On interest, the Court recorded that it was not in dispute that the work had been completed in 2023, yet the respondents had not released the payment for nearly three years; the amount is therefore payable with interest at 6% per annum (para 7). The order does not itself quantify the amount due (paras 6-7).

Legal Principle

Where an electricity distribution company cannot dispute that a contractor's claim for payment for work done on a route it revised is covered by M/s Surya Constructions, the High Court may direct payment under Article 226 despite a representation remedy in the work order, and award interest for years of delay (paras 4, 6-7).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

Contractors whose works are enlarged mid-way by a revised route should note how this claim was decided. The respondents could not dispute that M/s Surya Constructions covered it and pressed only a representation under Condition 43 of the work order; the Court disposed of the writ petition in that decision's terms and directed payment within six weeks (paras 4, 6). It added interest at 6% a year because the work, undisputedly completed in 2023, had gone unpaid for nearly three years (para 7).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

M/s Surya Constructions v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 16 SCC 794, Civil Appeal No. 2610 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 29505 of 2014), order dated 08.03.2019
Followed Discussed at ¶ 3, 4, 5, 6
Cited by the petitioner as squarely covering the issue, the Supreme Court having disposed of the appeal on identical facts (para 3); the respondents could not dispute that it covered the issue (para 4); the petitioner added that it had dealt with the alternative-remedy objection, holding that where the State behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere under Article 226 (para 5). In view of the decision the Court disposed of the writ petition in the same terms and directed payment within six weeks (para 6).