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

WPA/14624/2025HC CalcuttaGSTCNR WBCHCA030006202516 July 2025Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, Jaya Construction & Company, was awarded a work order by the respondent, Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation (BMC), on 03.10.2024. The petitioner completed the assigned work, and a completion certificate was issued by the Executive Engineer PWD on 05.03.2025. This certificate stated the final bill amount as Rs. 8,31,469/- (excluding GST & L.W. Cess) and Rs. 9,90,945/- (including GST & L.W. Cess). Despite the admitted bill amount, the BMC failed to release the payment. The petitioner submitted a representation on 25.03.2025 seeking redressal, but the BMC neither responded nor took steps towards settlement. Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court.

Held

The Court held that the respondent corporation should decide the petitioner’s representation dated 25.03.2025 strictly in accordance with law. This decision must be made within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a server copy of the Court's order. The respondent is also required to afford the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and pass a reasoned and speaking order. The outcome of this consideration shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter. The Court noted that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the speaking order, they will be at liberty to challenge it in accordance with law. The Court did not delve into the merits of the GST or L.W. Cess amounts, as the primary issue was the non-payment of admitted contractual dues and the lack of response from the respondent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent corporation has failed to act upon the admitted contractual dues of the petitioner, thereby violating their contractual obligations and potentially administrative law principles. This issue turns on the interpretation of the contractual terms and the duty of the respondent to process payments for completed work. Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the respondent authority has failed to release the admitted bill amount despite the petitioner duly executing the assigned work and receiving a completion certificate. The petitioner also contended that the respondent corporation failed to respond to their representation dated 25.03.2025 or take any steps towards settlement. Respondent: Submitted that they are willing to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 25.03.2025 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a server copy of the order, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

16.07.2025 Sl. No.22 Ct.3/ SG W.P.A. 14624 of 2025 [Jaya Construction & Company & Anr. vs. Bidhannagar Municipal Corpn. & Ors.] Ms. Sanghamitra Nandy … … for the petitioner Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Mr. Arka Kumar Nag, Mr. Tirthankar Dey. … … for the BMC 1. Affidavit of service is taken on record. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition alleging non-payment of admitted contractual dues by the respondent corporation. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent corporation issued work order dated 03.10.2024 in favour of the petitioner, and he has duly executed the assigned work within the extended time period. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer PWD by his Memo No. 897/PWD/ROAD/BMC dated 05.03.2025 issued a completion certificate in favour of the petitioner, stating that the petitioner has completed the work within extended period under Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation. In the said certificate final bill amount was mentioned as Rs. 8,31,469/- (excluding GST & L.W. Cess) and Rs. 9,90,945/- (including GST & L.W. Cess). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, despite admitted bill amount, the respondent authority has failed to release the amount due to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to submit a representation dated 25.03.2025, seeking expeditious redressal of the grievance. 2 5. He further contended that despite receiving the said representation, the respondent corporation neither responded to it nor took any steps towards settlement of the admitted dues. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent corporation submits that the respondent is willing to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 25.03.2025 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a server copy of this order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 7. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent corporation, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by directing the respondent corporation to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 25.03.2025, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a server copy of this order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and by passing a

reasoned and speaking order.

The outcome of the said consideration shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter.

Needless to mention that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the speaking order, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.

10.

With the above direction the present writ petition is disposed of.

11.

Since no affidavit has been called for, the allegations made in the writ petition cannot be deemed to have been admitted.

12.

Let urgent photostate certificate copy of the order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking.

(Gaurang Kanth, 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.