Standards Builders And Anr. vs. The Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation Adn Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Standards Builders & Anr., filed a writ petition seeking the disbursal of Rs. 32,70,044 (excluding GST and LW CESS) for outstanding dues related to a work order dated 25.02.2021, along with the release of earnest money and security deposit. They contended that they completed the assigned work within the stipulated period and had made representations to the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation (BMC) without receiving a response. The BMC, however, argued that the claimed amount was not an admitted liability and that the petitioners had not provided a completion certificate. The BMC further submitted that a certificate dated 20.11.2024 indicated the work was still in progress.
Held
The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reasoning was based on the absence of foundational documentation from the petitioners to establish the completion of the assigned construction work or that the claimed amount was an admitted sum. The Court found substance in the corporation's contention that the existence of disputed questions of fact pertaining to the execution and quantification of alleged dues, coupled with a BMC certificate stating the work was still in progress, made the claim factually contested. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioners liberty to seek redressal before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the Court declined to entertain the matter on its merits due to the factual disputes.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the disbursal of the claimed amount and release of security deposits when there is a dispute regarding the completion of contractual work and the quantification of dues? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that they had completed the work and were entitled to the outstanding dues and release of security. They had made representations to the BMC without a response. Revenue's contention: The Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation contended that the claimed amount was not an admitted liability, and crucially, no completion certificate had been provided by the petitioners to substantiate their claim. Furthermore, a certificate from the BMC itself indicated the work was still in progress, thus raising a factual dispute.
Sections Cited
Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025 Sl. No. 20 Ct No. 3
SG
WPA 8493 of 2025
Standards Builders & Anr.
Vs The Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Ms. Sanghamitra Nandy.
…for the petitioners
Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay,
Mr. Arka Kumar Nag,
Mr. Tirthankar Dey.
…for BMC
Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record.
The present writ petition has been filed seeking disbursal of a sum of Rs. 32,70,044/-, (excluding GST & LW CESS) claimed as outstanding dues arising from work order Memo no. 559/PWD/ROAD/BMC dated 25.02.2021 along with the release of the earnest money and the security deposit.
It is the case of the petitioners that they have completed the assigned work within the stipulated period under the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation. It is further contended that they made representation before the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation regarding the payments but no response has been received till date.
2
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent corporation submits that the amount claimed by the petitioners is not an admitted liability and further contends that no completion certificate has been placed on record to substantiate the completion of work as alleged.
It is the categorical submission of the corporation that the existence of a dispute regarding the execution and completion of the contractual work renders the petitioners’ claim factually contested as the amount claimed is not an admitted liability and no completion certificate has been produced to support the assertion of completion.
Upon considering the arguments advanced by the counsels for both the parties and on perusal of the documents produced on record, this Court finds substance in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent corporation. No documentary evidence has been adduced by the petitioners to establish that the assigned construction work has been completed under the aforementioned work order or that the amount claimed by the petitioners is an admitted sum. It is pertinent to mention that the certificate issued by the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation dated 20.11.2024, bearing
3 Memo No. 540/PWD/ROAD/BMC, the authority remarked that the work is still in progress.
In the absence of such foundational documentation and in view of the existence of disputed questions of fact pertaining to the execution and quantification of the alleged dues, this Court is not inclined to invoke its extraordinary juri iction under article 226 of the constitution of India.
However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to seek redressal of the grievances before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
With the above observations, the present writ petition is dismissed.
Since no affidavits have been filed by the respondents, the allegations made in the writ petition shall not be deemed to have been admitted.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this 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.