Writ petitions are maintainable for contractual claims against state entities, and withholding payments due to contractors on arbitrary grounds violates constitutional obligations to act fairly.

JUDGMENT

S. Talapatra, J. - Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. assisted by Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a category-1 Contractor as registered under the Public Works Department, Government of Tripura, NBCC, NPCC, ONGC, HSCL and several other Government and Public Sector Enterprises. The petitioner has claimed his robust experience in the business. In response to the DNIT No. 62/CE/PWD (R & B)/SQC/PD-III/2007-08 for up-gradation of Panisagar to Sailen Bari Road under 40% renewal under Bharat Nirman Programme, the petitioner participated in the tendering and got selected. The work order No. 31-713/EE/(DD)/6065-6082 dated 06.11.2018 was issued in his favour. According to the petitioner, he had the liability to provide maintenance for a period of five years and that period came to end on 09.05.2017. He had been pressing for payment of the final bill and release the performance security and security deposits. But that was not so done, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has satisfactorily completed the whole work.

3. The petitioner had submitted the final bill amounting to Rs. 6,94,000/- to the respondents after completion of the work. The said final bill, the security deposit and the performance security deposit amounting to Rs. 16,69,000/- had not been paid or released till the day of filing of the writ petition despite serious persuasion from the end of the petitioner. On 02.12.2019, the petitioner asked the respondents for payment of the said amount but without any yield. Thereafter, on 21.10.2020, the petitioner issued a notice of demand for releasing the security deposits and payment of the final bills amounting to Rs. 23,63,000/- (in aggregate) along with interest within a period of fortnight. But again, there was no response. The petitioner has asserted that the performance security can be retained only for the five years for purpose of ensuring the routine maintenance in terms of the agreement. For withholding of the said amount, the petitioner has been put to serious financial stress and hence he has approached this court for directing the respondents to release security deposit and performance security deposit amounting to Rs. 16,69,000/- and the final bill amounting to Rs. 6,94,000/- along with interest etc.

4. The respondents however have raised the plea in the reply that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, inasmuch as the dispute arises from the contract. That apart, it has been stated that the petitioner has neither executed any maintenance work nor has corrected any defect during the five years by way of maintenance in terms of clause-32 of the agreement. Clause-32 of the agreement provides that the defect be corrected by the Contractor but the petitioner did not correct the defects. It has been projected in their reply that the final deviation bill has not been approved. As the petitioner did not execute the maintenance work in terms of the agreement he cannot ask for release of the security deposit or the performance security deposit. The petitioner does not have any indefeasible right as claimed by him.

5. In response thereof, the petitioner has filed the rejoinder stating inter alia that there had been no notice to the Contractor (the petitioner) in terms of the Clause-32.1.1 from the Engineer by delineating the defects which are to be corrected by the petitioner. This is an imaginative plea that has been taken by the res