Sky Limits Construction And Anr. vs. Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Sky Limits Construction & Anr., were awarded a work order by the Bidhannagore Municipal Corporation (BMC) for renovation and upgradation of roads and drains. The total tender value was Rs. 2,84,77,869/- (excluding GST & LW cess). The petitioners submitted a bill for Rs. 1,62,15,311/-, which was certified as 74.9% complete. BMC did not disburse the amount, leading the petitioners to file a writ petition. The High Court directed BMC to pay legitimate dues. BMC appealed, and the Division Bench modified the order, directing BMC to pay Rs. 1,07,75,311/- within a fortnight, relegating balance claims to an appropriate forum. BMC's SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The petitioners received Rs. 1,07,75,311/- and then filed another writ petition seeking disbursement of the balance amount, which they claim was previously refused.
Held
The Court held that the petitioners cannot reagitate the same cause of action in a fresh writ petition. The Division Bench's order, which directed payment of Rs. 1,07,75,311/- and relegated balance claims to an appropriate forum, had been accepted by the petitioners and upheld by the Supreme Court. By receiving the amount as directed by the Division Bench, the petitioners had accepted that order. Therefore, approaching the High Court again in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction for the balance amount was deemed an abuse of the process of the court. The Court found that the matter had reached finality concerning the writ jurisdiction for the total relief sought. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to maintain a fresh writ petition for the balance amount after the Division Bench order, which was accepted and upheld by the Supreme Court, had relegated balance claims to an appropriate forum? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argue they are entitled to maintain this writ petition for the remaining dues. Revenue/State's contention: The Bidhannagore Municipal Corporation (BMC) implicitly argues that the matter has reached finality and the petitioners cannot reagitate the same cause of action through a writ petition, especially after accepting the Division Bench's order and receiving the directed payment. They contend that the current writ petition is an abuse of the court process.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026 Item No. AD 5 Saswata
WPA 9820 of 2026 Sky Limits Construction & Anr. Versus Bidhannaogore Municipal Corporation & Ors. Ms. Sanghamitra Nandy …For the petitioners Mr. Avinash Kankani Mr. Anish Mukherjee Mr. Suryaneel Das .…For the BMC
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is retained with the record.
The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the municipal authorities to disburse a sum of Rs.54,00,000/- due to the petitioners along with earnest money of Rs.5,69,557/- in respect of the works allegedly executed by the petitioners in respect of Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation.
It is the petitioners’ case that the petitioner No. 1 was entrusted with the work of renovation and upgradation of bituminous and concrete road and drain in different location of Nayar Mahisbathan, Penite area within ward no. 28, under the Bidhannagore Municipal Corporation. According to the petitioners the petitioners had participated in a tender process in relation to notice inviting tender no. – 443/PWD/ROAD/BMC dated 29th January, 2021. 2
Pursuant to the aforesaid, a work order was issued in favour of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the amount put to tender was Rs.2,84,77,869/- (excluding GST & LW cess). The petitioners have also enclosed a copy of the work order. According to them, though the petitioners had submitted the first running bill on 19th February 2024 amounting to Rs.1,62,15,311/- and though, the Executive Engineer, PWD by his memorandum dated 1st April 2024 has issued a certificate in favour of the petitioner no. 1 stating that the petitioner no. 1 had completed 74.9 per cent of the work to the satisfaction of the Bidhannagore Municipal Corporation, the aforesaid billed amount was not disbursed.
In the circumstances, the petitioners made representations and since, such representation did not yield any result, the petitioners were compelled to approach this Court in a writ petition which was registered as WPA no. 10314 of 2024. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 12th June, 2024 with a direction upon the Commissioner, Bidhannagore Municipal Corporation to pay the legitimate dues of the petitioners upon consideration of all relevant records including the completion certificate dated 1st April 2024. 6. Records reveal that the Bidhannagore Municipal Corporation had preferred an appeal from the aforesaid order which was registered as MAT 1797 of 3 2024. Such appeal came to be disposed of by order dated 13th February 2025 by, inter alia, observing as follows : - “8. Writ petitioners participated in the tender floated by the appellants. In terms of such tender process, a work order was issued to the writ petitioners by the appellants. The work order was for renovation and upgradation of bituminous road and concrete road and drain in different location of Naya Mahisbathan Polenite area within Ward No. 28 under Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation.
Writ petitioners submitted their bill with the appellants. Such bill was certified by the relevant authorities on February 12, 2024. The certificate appearing in such bill as follows:- “This is to certified that the work has been carried our maintening all the specification in terms of contract & direction of E.I.C”.
Ignoring the typographical errors appearing in such certificate, the appropriate authorities contemporaneously certified that the writ petitioners carried out to the work in terms of the work order valued at Rs.1,62,15,311/-. Thereafter, the appellants also issued a certificate dated April 1, 2024 where the final bill amount of Rs.1,62,15,311/- was acknowledged.
The certificate
also acknowledges that the bill of the writ petitioners was for 74.91% work in terms of the work order.
In the pleadings filed before the learned Single Judge, there was no averment on the part of the appellants before us quantifying the loss and damages for the heads on which such alleged loss and damages were suffered by the appellants. It is in the appeal that by way of supplementary affidavit, the so-called loss and damages are sought to be introduced and quantified. Taking the loss and damages allegedly suffered by the appellants at the highest, the claim is for a sum of Rs.54,40,000/-.
Therefore, deducting such sum from the bill, amount of Rs.1,62,15,311/-, a sum of Rs.1,07,75,311/- remains due and payable by the appellants to the writ petitioners in respect of which the appellants are not in a position to advance any defence.
4
In Ravi Udyog & Anr. (supra), in the facts and circumstances of that case, the entirety of the money claim lodged by the writ petitioners by way of writ petition was contested by way of counterclaim. In such facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court should not follow two separate courses of action, such as relegating a party to the remedy of suit insofar as his counterclaim was concerned and ordering payment insofar as the admissions went.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, out of the sum of Rs.1,62,15,3,11/-, at the highest a sum of Rs.54,40,000/- can be deducted on account of the so-called counterclaim. Therefore, the sum of Rs.1,07,75,311/- remains due and payable by the appellants to the writ petitioners uncontested.
Learned Single Judge by the impugned order directed the authorities to pay such portion of the claim of the writ petitioners as is admitted by the appellants.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellants could advance a plea of counterclaim, albeit specious, to our mind, for a sum of Rs.54,40,000/-.
Therefore, in our view, interest of justice would be sub-served by modifying the impugned order and directing the appellants before us to pay the sum of Rs.1,07,75,311/- to the appellants within a fortnight from date.
Balance claims of the parties are relegated to be adjudicated before the appropriate forum.
M.A.T. 1797 of 2024 and the connected application, if any, are disposed of without any order as to cost”
As would appear from the above, noting that at the highest a sum of Rs. 54,40,000/- can be deducted on account of the so-called counterclaim, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court had noted that a sum of Rs.1,07,75,311/-
5 remains due and payable by the appellants to the writ petitioners uncontested.
In the peculiar facts, the Hon’ble Division Bench by observing that interest of justice will be sub- served modified the impugned order and directed the appellants before the Hon’ble Division Bench to pay a sum of Rs.1,07,75,311/- within a fortnight The balance claim of the parties were relegated to be adjudicated before appropriate forum.
The matter, however, travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court at the instance of the Bidhannagore Municipal Corporation in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.(s) Diary No (s). 34028 / 2025. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, by order dated 16th September 2025 dismissed the SLP by observing that it is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court.
The petitioners claim to have received the amount of Rs. 1,07,75,311/- as directed to be paid by the Hon’ble Division Bench. The petitioners have now after receiving the said amount by accepting the order of the Division Bench have once again approached this Court in its extra ordinary writ juri iction for 6 disbursal of the balance amount which had previously been refused to the petitioners. Although, the petitioners insist that the they are entitled to maintain this writ petition, in my view once the petitioners’ contention for grant of total relief having been declined in the extra ordinary writ juri iction by relegating the claim of parties to appropriate forum, the petitioners cannot be permitted to once again reagitate the same cause when the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench was not only accepted by the petitioners but the same had also reached finality. The above writ petition is an abuse of process of Court.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee.
All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.