WPA 1891 of 2025 N.22Sl

151/CL Parbatti Decorator

12.12.25 v.

Sl-515 The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Ct.551 (S.R.) Mr. Ritwik Pattanayak … for the petitioner.

Mr. Amal Kumar Sen, Ld. AAG Mr. Ashima Das … for the State.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 “to pay the legitimate due Rs.1,86,27,830/- (RUPEES ONE CRORE EIGHTY-SIX LACS TWENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND THIRTY ONLY) to your petitioner with commercial rate of interest for the work done against the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) vide Memo No.002/WBLA- 21/Infra/2021 dated 25.01.2021 and Memo No.002/1/(20) WBLA-21/Infra/2021 dated 25.01.2021 and work order vide Memo No.103/1(5)/WBLA-21/Infra/2021 dated

23.02.2021”.

2. In terms of the direction passed by this Court on September 19, 2025, a report in the form of an affidavit has been filed by the State respondents, which reveals as follows: -

“7. That way back in 2021 the said Junior Engineer (QWP), Contai – 1, Block completed the said job of verification and scrutiny of those Bills submitted by the Petitioner and after meticulous scrutiny of each job done by the Petitioner including of total amount claimed in each of those Bills, the said Junior Engineer, Contai – 1 Block came to a finding that only a total sum of Rs.1,22,26,958/- was the undisputed aggregate bill amount against the bills submitted by the petitioner and the balance amount is nothing but an exaggerated figure not payable by the respondent authorities.

8. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.81,35,117/-

(including all taxes) was duly paid to the Petitioner by the respondent authority out of that agreed liability and at present the Petitioner is entitled to a balance sum of Rs.40,91,841/- as full and final settlement against the works done by him or against the hire charges of Articles supplied by the Petitioner.

9. So far the payment of said balance admitted sum of Rs.40,91,841/- is concerned the necessary requisition has been sent to the office of the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur, and after getting the said sum there will be no difficulty to disburse the said amount of Rs.40,91,841/- to the Petitioner.

10. It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to any further sum on account of that tender work being annexure P-1 to the writ petition save and except the above admitted figure of Rs.40,91,841/-”.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s claim is much higher than stated by the Respondents and that the petitioner is entitled to a total sum of Rs.2,64,37,543/- as claimed in the writ petition out of which only an amount of Rs.78,09,713/- has been paid thus far to the petitioner. It is submitted that in fact presently a sum of Rs.1,86,27,830/- is payable together with interest to the petitioner on account of the work done by the petitioner as indicated in the writ petition. It is submitted that no reason has been communicated to the petitioner as to why the full amount as claimed has not been paid to the petitioner.

4. Mr. Sen, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State respondents, however, strongly refutes such contention and says that nothing more than the amount mentioned in the affidavit i.e. Rs.40,91,841/- is due and owing from the State respondents to the petitioner after payment of a sum of Rs.81,35,117/- as already indicated in the report in the form of an affidavit filed on behalf of the State Respondents.

5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record.

6. It is clear from the report in the form of affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent State Authorities that the petitioner is entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.40,91,841/- by the respondents.

7. Since, it now stands admitted that a sum of Rs.40,91,841/- is due to the petitioner from the Respondents and that the same could not be paid to the petitioner for non-availability of funds with the relevant authority due t