25.09.2025 sdas WPA 549 of 2022 with CAN 1 of 2025 Signify Innovations India Ltd.

Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar Ms. Ashika Daga Mr. Samriddha Sen Ms. Sampurna Mukherjee …….for the petitioner Mr. Shamim Ul Bari Ms. Amrita Panja Moulik …. for the State Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Gupta …. for Nadia Zilla Parishad Mr. Amitava Chaudhri Mr. N. Roy …. for the Secretary, Nadia Zilla Parishad Mr. Tapan Kumar Rakshit ….. for the Kalyani Municipality

1. A legal tussle has spiraled up to this Court over the issue of payment of Rs. 1,65,04,692.84 to the petitioner for the work executed by it, thereby prompting the petitioner to prefer the present writ petition, essentially seeking a writ of mandamus directing the concerned respondents to release the said amount.

2. For better appreciation of the issue raised in the present writ petition, it would be apposite to refer to the essential facts, as outlined in the petition, which led to its presentation.

3. A tender was floated by respondent no. 2, Nadia Zilla Parishad, District – Nadia, inviting eligible and interested bidders to bid for the work of preparation of DPR, execution, erection, and commissioning of a Flood Lighting Illumination System at Kalyani Stadium for football games on a turnkey basis.

4. The petitioner participated in the tender process and, having emerged as the successful bidder, was awarded the contract, and consequently, a work order was issued in its favour. The petitioner completed the work as per the specifications set out in the work order and/or tender document. The total value of the work executed was Rs. 5,43,62,897/-, and it is contended by the petitioner that it received only Rs.

3,70,98,947 up to March 2019.

5. A dispute then arose regarding the payment of the remaining amount, being Rs. 1,65,04,692.84/-. The petitioner approached the respondents on multiple occasions, either by submitting written representations or by personally meeting the officials of the respondent authorities. However, such efforts did not yield the desired resolution, which compelled the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

6. Record reveals that a Coordinate Bench, upon arriving at the conclusion that the writ petition needs to be decided upon exchange of affidavits, directed the parties to file their respective affidavits.

Accordingly, the parties exchanges their affidavits.

7. Mr. Sarkar, learned Advocate representing the petitioner, submits that the respondents are not in a position to deny that the petitioner has executed the work as per the specifications contained in the work order and to the satisfaction of all the respondent authorities. It is an admitted position that out of the total amount of Rs. 5,43,62,897/-, the petitioner has been paid approximately Rs. 3,70,98,947/- by the Nadia Zila Parishad, and the remaining amount has been withheld without assigning any cogent reason.

8. Referring to Annexure P-2 to the writ petition at page no. 63, he submits that the Financial Controller and Chief Accounts Officer, Nadia Zilla Parishad, through a communication dated 4th January, 2021, informed the petitioner that the Nadia Zilla Parishad would honour the contract and would make all efforts to release the payment as soon as possible.

9. He further submits that the State or its functionaries, having entered into a contract with a private entity, cannot act arbitrarily or whimsically and cannot withhold payment for the work duly executed. He, therefore, prays for a direction upon the concerned respondents to release the outstanding amount in favour of the petitioner.

10. Mr. Sen, learned senior Advocate representing Nadia Zilla Parishad, submits that the initiative to install the Flood Lighting Illumination System in Kalyani Stadium was undertaken solely at the request of Kalyani Municipality. Referring to a communication issued by the Municipality, Mr. Sen submits that the Municipality had undertaken to bear the additional cost of the project. He furt