JUDGMENT :

1. Despite service of notice, the State is not represented.

2. Let the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of West Bengal be added as a party respondent to the instant proceedings.

3. Liberty is given to the advocate-on-record of the appellants to effect the amendment in course of the day.

4. The appeal is directed against an order dated 17^th April, 2025 whereby the Single Bench directed the Raiganj Municipality upon being furnished with necessary funds to pay the undisputed amount of Rs.79,56,000/- to the petitioner.

5. The writ petition itself was filed by the contractor against order dated 8^th December 2023 passed by the Principal Secretary, Municipal affairs, admittedly a substantial period of time after completion of the works.

6. The Raiganj Municipality admits that the work of construction by the Contractor/writ petitioner, involved building of roads, school buildings and other centers for the benefit of the municipal citizens of Raiganj.

7. It appears in no uncertain terms on record that the State and the Municipality are both equally liable for paying up for work obtained by a citizen contractor. Such right of the citizen emanates from Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India.

8. Neither the State nor the Municipality is unable to dispute or deny the claim of the contractor made till date. The stand of the Raiganj Municipality is that an erstwhile Chairman, without consulting the members of the Municipality has taken it upon himself to issue the work orders in question. The Municipality has lodged a criminal complaint against the said erstwhile Chairman with the local police and FIR was registered. Investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed only against the erstwhile Chairman one Mr. Mohit Sengupta. The trial resulted in an acquittal of the accused.

9. It is the long pendency of the trial that is cited a reason for the writ petitioner not to be able to raise his bill. Upon receipt of the bill, the Municipality forwarded the same to the Municipal Affairs Department of the State.

10. The Single Bench has recorded at two places in the impugned order that the completion certificate of the works undertaken by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 has been issued. This is denied by the counsel for the appellants.

11. This Court notes that if an incorrect recording of fact is made by a Court of law, it is the duty of the aggrieved party to apply before the Single Bench for correction of the order. There is no specific ground taken in the memorandum of appeal that no completion certificate was ever issued by the Municipality in favour of the appellant.

12. Upon the matter reaching the Municipal Affairs Department, the writ petitioner filed WPA 17176 of 2023 whereby the Single Bench of this High Court vide order dated 25^th September, 2023 directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs to take a decision on the matter. A reasoned order was directed to be passed. Pursuant thereto the Principal Secretary, Government of West Bengal passed the order impugned in the writ petition dated 8th December, 2023 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The following salient points appear from the order impugned in the writ petition.

(a) That the prior approval of the concerned department of the State under the Municipal Affairs was not taken before initiating the works.

(b) The Municipality was asked by the Principal Secretary to submit several documents namely appropriate resolutions for the works and schemes undertaken by the Municipality.

(c) Did the Municipality take a decision to initiate the works? Whether prior administrative approval and financial sanction was obtained by the Municipality from the State.

(d) Documents regarding issuance of e- tender, tender service against such schemes were required.

(e) Whether separate work orders were issued against each work under each scheme. Copies of such work orders were required.

(f) Whether bills were submitted by the writ peti