The specific clauses of the contract and the completion certificate played a pivotal role in determining the appellant's right to refund the security deposit, while highlighting the Corporation's failure to follow the contract terms and refer the dispute to arbitration.

JUDGMENT

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J. - The present intra-Court mandamus appeal has been preferred challenging an order dated 25th February, 2019 passed in W.P. 22509 (W) of 2018 by which the learned Single Judge refused to the grant the reliefs, as prayed for, observing that the matter involves disputed questions of fact and that the parties would be at liberty to avail of their respective remedies, in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.

2. The appellant assails the aforesaid order inter alia on several grounds. It is the appellant's case that the appellant participated in an e- Tender for Green Power Solar Photo Voltaic Plant and energy efficient LED luminaries and emerged to be successful. A work order was issued on 1st July, 2016 and subsequently a contract was executed between the appellant and the West Bengal Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) on 11th July, 2016. To comply with the terms of the tender the appellant deposited earnest money to the tune of Rs. 10,57,249/-. According to the appellant the work was commenced on 8th July, 2016 and the same was duly completed on 15th November, 2017. The total value of work executed by the appellant was Rs.5,27,30,252/-. As per the terms of the contract, the Corporation had from time to time deducted 10% from the total value of bills, payable to the appellant and the said sum so deducted along with the earnest money deposit to a tune of Rs. 10,57,249/- made up the security deposit amount of Rs. 51,47,546/-.

3. The appellant says that as per clause 17 of the conditions of contract, the Corporation was obliged to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.51,47,546/-.which constituted the security deposit amount, including earnest money deposit. Since the Corporation failed to refund the security deposit including the earnest money, the appellant submitted several representations but the same did not evoke any response and as such the appellant was constrained the file the writ petition on 12th November, 2018.

4. The appellant says that when the matter came hearing, the advocate representing the Corporation had orally submitted before the Hon'ble Court that during pendency of the writ petition and before expiry of the defect liability period, various issues have been pointed out to the appellant, which the appellant was required to rectify for the Corporation to release the security deposit but the appellant failed. The appellant says that the learned Single Judge only on the basis of the aforesaid submission refused to interfere, observing that the said issues involved disputed questions of fact.

5. The appellant says that the learned Judge erred in law in not appreciating that the writ petition did not involve any disputed question of fact and there was a specific clause, being clause no. 17 of the 'conditions of contract', which provided for security deposit refund.

6. According to Mr. Dhar, learned senior advocate representing the appellant, the work in respect of the contract was completed on 15th November, 2017 and despite expiry of 3 months therefrom, the completion certificate was not issued by the Corporation. The said certificate was belatedly issued on 8th August, 2018, however, confirming that the work had been completed as per tender specifications and schedule of works and that as such all allegations contrary to the same are an after-thought.

7. Relying upon the payment certificate dated 8th August, 2018, Mr. Dhar submits that the Corporation had passed six several R.A. Bills including a Final Bill and from each such bill an aggregate amount of Rs. 40,90,297/- was deducted towards security deposit. As per payment certificate the date of final payment was 28th February, 2018 but the appellant's account was actually credited on 14th March, 2018. He then takes this Court to the general conditions of the contract and refers to clause marked as SD Refund. The said clause reads as follows:

'SD Refund 75% (seventy fi