# (ii) Approval and completion

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 102/Xb-11
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1928-07-14
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 102/Xb-11
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ii-approval-and-completion-162459
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

254
(ii) Approval and completion
G.L. No. 16/67-13 dated 14th July, 1928
A contractor to whom a work is entrusted is not entitled to full payment till such
time as the work is completed satisfactorily and is duly approved. If any defects are
noticed, and the District Judge considers it necessary, the Executive Engineer or the
District Engineer of the Public Works Department should at once be consulted in the
matter and asked to give his expert opinion as to what penalty should be exacted from the
contractor and what directions (technical or otherwise) should be given to him to enable
him to carry out satisfactorily the work to completion. If an advance is given to a
contractor, the balance of the amount should not be paid to him till such time as the work
is completed and approved.
District Judges should exercise great care and thought before making payments to
contractors.
C.E. No. 27/IXg-10 dated 22nd April, 1964
The District Judges should follow the instructions contained in paragraphs 400-402
of Financial Handbook, Volume VI which require that on completion of an original work,
the Executive Engineer of Public Works Division concerned should forward a completion
certificate in the prescribed form to the competent authority of the department for which
the work was executed, who should sign it in the space provided for the purpose and
return it to the Executive Engineer concerned. In case the countersigning authority is not
satisfied with the work he should record his remarks over his signature.
C.L. No. 102/Xb-11 dated 6th October, 1951
Whenever any repairs (annual, quadrennial or special), or original work is
undertaken, the work should be carried out strictly in accordance with rules contained in
Chapter XIII of the Financial Handbook, Volume V, Part I in general and those contained
in 307 and 311 paragraphs and paragraph 17 of Appendix XIX of the Handbook in
particular.
(iii) Consulting Engineers not to be employed for special repairs works
G.L. No. 31/73 of 1931
Rules in paragraphs 270 (c) to 273 of Financial Handbook, Volume V, Part I,
which deal with the procedure relating to special repairs, do not allow any supervision fee
or fees for preparation of plans and estimates of special repairs though estimates are of
course prepared for the repairs to be carried out. In view of these rules, audit objection is
raised when an architect or a firm of contractors is engaged to prepare the estimate for
such repairs and is paid the fees laid down in Annexure A on pages 140 and 141 of the
rules in the above Financial Handbook. Those fees are intended for an architect or a firm
of contractors who is engaged for the preparation of projects and the supervision of work.
It is, therefore, evident that Consulting Engineers or Architects should not be employed
for special repairs works.
255
(iv) Examination of works
C.L. No. 49/VIIIc-10 dated 18th May, 1959
The District Judges should arrange to provide the Chief Technical Examiners Cell
with such documents and information as may be necessary to perform its duties
efficiently. The visiting officers of the Cell should be afforded every assistance in their
work and all requests made by them for access to work, drawings, specifications,
contracts, measurement books or for any other pertinent documents or information,
should be complied forthwith. The instructions issued by the Chief Technical Examiner
for submission of necessary returns should be complied with. The Chief Technical
Examiner and the Technical Examiners will intimate their programme for inspections of
works at site to the District Judge concerned who should arrange to afford them all
necessary facilities. In case of surprise visits, the District Judge concerned will be
intimated just before the visit to the site.
G.L. No. 29/67-29 dated 15th November, 1928
District Judges are not authorized to call on the Divisional Engineer to inspect a
petty work under construction. They may call on him for opinion on matters such as the
suitability of the design or the reasonableness of the rates; but it must be on the clear
understanding that the taking of such advice does not relieve them of their own
responsibility.
[6] PAYMENT FROM BUDGET GRANTS
(i) Irregular payment prohibited
G.L. No. 21/73-5(6) dated 17th August, 1928
The irregularities relating to the following items should not be committed by the
subordinate court:
(a)
Irregular payments of advance to contractors in order to avoid lapse of
grant at the end of the financial year.
(b)
Works pertaining to special repairs being sanctioned from Judges annual
repair allotment in order to utilise that budget allotment to full extent.
G.L. No. 11-73-41 dated 22nd March, 1939 as amended by
C.L. No. 68/U dated 17th November, 1955
In order to facilitate the allotment of funds from the lump sum grant placed at the
disposal of the Court for the purpose of improvement of court compounds, District
Judges should furnish each year positively by the 1st week of May the following
particulars:
(1)
Income derived from the vend of foodstuffs etc., during the year preceding
the year to which the estimates relate.
(2)
Details of requirements for their recurring expenditure, during the
proposed year for the court compounds at different stations, in the
judgeship with explanations for variations, if any, between the proposed
amounts and the amounts sanctioned in the previous year.