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

Facts

The petitioner, Jaya Construction & Company, was awarded a work order by the respondent, Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation (BMC), on 08.08.2023. The petitioner completed the assigned work within the extended period, as certified by the Executive Engineer PWD on 21.01.2025. The completion certificate stated the final bill amount as Rs. 26,02,345/- (excluding GST & L.W. Cess) and Rs. 31,01,475/- (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 payment, but the BMC neither responded nor took steps to settle the dues. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court alleging non-payment of admitted contractual dues.

Held

The Court noted the submissions made by both parties. The respondent corporation expressed its willingness to decide the petitioner's representation dated 25.03.2025 within four weeks, after affording the petitioner a personal hearing. In light of this submission, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent corporation to decide the petitioner's representation strictly in accordance with law. This decision is to be made within four weeks from the date of receipt of a server copy of the order, following a personal hearing for the petitioner and the passing of a reasoned and speaking order. The outcome of this consideration is to be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter. The Court clarified that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the speaking order, they are at liberty to challenge it in accordance with law. The Court also noted that since no affidavit was called for, the allegations in the writ petition are not deemed to have been admitted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent corporation has failed to discharge its contractual obligation by not releasing the admitted payment due to the petitioner for the completed work, and if so, what is the appropriate relief? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning contractual obligations and payment due under the GST regime). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondent corporation has failed to release the admitted bill amount despite the completion of work and issuance of a completion certificate. They further argued that their representation dated 25.03.2025 seeking redressal of this grievance was neither responded to nor acted upon by the respondent authority. Respondent's arguments: The respondent corporation 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 Court's order, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of a personal hearing.