Shome Enterprise And Anr. vs. Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Shome Enterprise & Anr., filed a writ petition before the High Court alleging non-payment of admitted contractual dues by the respondent, Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation (BMC). The petitioner was issued a work order on July 11, 2024, and completed the assigned work within the stipulated time. A completion certificate was issued on August 21, 2024, by the executing engineer, PWD, stating the final bill amount as Rs. 5,21,536.26 (excluding GST & L.W. Cess) and Rs. 6,21,567.00 (including GST & L.W. Cess). Despite admitting the bill amount, the BMC failed to release the payment. The petitioner submitted a representation on January 8, 2025, seeking expeditious redressal, but received no response or action from the respondent.
Held
The Court directed the respondent corporation to decide the petitioner's representation dated January 8, 2025, by passing a reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the server copy of the order. This decision was to be made after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The outcome of this consideration was to be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter. The Court noted that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the speaking order, they would be at liberty to challenge it in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided, but the core issue of non-payment was to be resolved by the respondent through a reasoned order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent corporation has failed to discharge its contractual obligation to pay admitted dues to the petitioner for the completed work, thereby necessitating judicial intervention through a writ petition? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent corporation had issued a work order, the work was completed and certified, and the final bill amount was admitted. Despite this, the respondent had failed to release the payment and had not responded to the petitioner's representation dated January 8, 2025, seeking settlement of the admitted dues. Respondent's Contention: The respondent corporation submitted that it was willing to decide the petitioner's representation dated January 8, 2025, within a period of four weeks from the server copy of the order, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025
Sl. No.61 Ct.3/ tkm
W.P.A. 2577 of 2025 [Shome Enterprise & Anr. vs. Bidhannagar Municipal Corpn. & Ors.]
Ms. Sanghamitra Nandy
… … for the petitioner
Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay
Mr. Arka Nag
Mr. Tirthankar Dey
… … for the BMC
Affidavit of service is taken on record.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition alleging non-payment of admitted contractual dues by the respondent corporation. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent corporation issued work order dated 11.07.2024 in favour of the petitioner and he has duly executed the assigned work within the stipulated period of time. Thereafter, the executing engineer PWD by his Memo No. 265/PWD/ROAD/BMC dated 21.08.2024 issued a completion certificate in favour of the petitioner stating that the petitioner has completed the work within stipulated period of time under Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation. In the said certificate final bill amount was mentioned amounting Rs. 5,21,536.26/- (excluding GST & L.W. Cess) and Rs. 6,21,567.00 (including GST & L.W. Cess).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite admitting the said bill amount, the respondent authority has failed to release the amount due to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner is forced to submit a representation dated 08.01.2025, seeking expeditious redressal.
2
He further contended that despite receiving the said representation the respondent corporation neither responded to the same nor took any steps towards settlement of the admitted dues.
Learned counsel for the respondent corporation submits that the respondent is willing to decide petitioner’s representation dated 08.01.2025 within a period of 4 weeks from the server copy of this order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
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 08.01.2025 by passing a reasoned order within a period of 4 weeks from server copy of this order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
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.
With the above direction the present writ petition is disposed of.
(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.