Jaya Construction And Company And Anr. vs. The Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation

Facts

The petitioner, Jaya Construction & Company, was awarded a work order by the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation (BMC) on August 22, 2023. The petitioner completed the assigned work within the stipulated time. A completion certificate was issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, on May 24, 2024, confirming the completion of work under the BMC. The final bill amount was stated as Rs. 2,93,080/- (excluding GST & L.W. Cess) and Rs. 3,49,293/- (including GST & L.W. Cess). Despite the admitted bill amount, the BMC failed to release the payment. The petitioner submitted a representation on March 25, 2025, seeking redressal, but received no response or action from the respondent authority.

Held

The Court directed the respondent corporation to decide the petitioner's representation dated March 25, 2025, strictly in accordance with law. This decision is to be made within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a server copy of the order. The respondent corporation must afford the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing before passing a reasoned and speaking order. The outcome of this consideration is to be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter. The Court noted that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the speaking order, they are at liberty to challenge it in accordance with law. The Court also stated that since no affidavit was called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are not deemed to have been admitted. No specific issue regarding GST provisions was decided, as the dispute primarily concerned the payment of contractual dues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent corporation has failed to discharge its contractual obligation to pay admitted dues to the petitioner, thereby necessitating judicial intervention under writ jurisdiction? The petitioner argued that despite the completion of work and the issuance of a completion certificate with an admitted bill amount, the respondent corporation has failed to release the payment. The petitioner further contended that their representation dated March 25, 2025, seeking expeditious settlement of dues, has been ignored by the respondent corporation, which has neither responded nor taken any steps towards payment. The respondent corporation, represented by its learned counsel, submitted that they are willing to decide the petitioner’s representation dated March 25, 2025, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a server copy of the Court's order, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing.