22.09.2025 tkm WPA 5768 of 2023 M/s. Bicon & Ors.

Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Joyak Kr. Gupta Mr. Pawan Kr. Jajodia ...for the petitioners.

Mr. Molay Singh Mr. Bibekananda Tripathy ...for the State.

Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee Ms. Madhurima Halder Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty ...for respondent nos. 2 to 4

1. The petitioners, by way of the present writ petition, challenge the inaction on the part of the respondent in not releasing their alleged legitimate dues amounting to Rs. 77,36,263/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, towards completion of certain work contracts awarded to them. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to work orders dated 12.06.2017 and 29.12.2017, the respondent–Bhatpara Municipality awarded contracts for the construction of various roads in its jurisdiction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the works were duly completed, and certificates evidencing completion were issued by the municipality. Despite submission of several bills, the outstanding amounts have not been released.

4. It is further submitted that repeated representations were made to the respondent authorities, but the same have not been acted upon.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent municipality submits that the contracts were issued way back in 2017. The petitioners, having failed to avail themselves of appropriate remedies at the relevant point of time, cannot now invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is further contended that the dispute arises out of purely commercial contracts, is in the nature of a money claim, and therefore, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

7. It is evident that the tenders in favour of the petitioners were issued in 2017. The contracts related to construction of roads, and though the petitioners claim to have completed the works and submitted bills, no payments have been released. The dispute raised is essentially contractual in nature and amounts to a claim for disputed money. There is nothing on record to show any clear admission by the municipality regarding the petitioners’ claims. The petitioners have also failed to produce completion certificates duly issued and acknowledged by the municipality in support of their assertions.

8.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is settled that in matters arising out of purely contractual obligations, writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily exercised.Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum, in accordance with law, for redressal of their grievance.

(Gaurang Kanth, J.)