Aniruddha Roy, J. :

1. The pe titioner states that, arising out of a tender process a Work Order was issued dated September 26, 2018 in favour of the petitioner for carrying out certain civil construction work. The entire work has been completed by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the concerned municipality as would be evident from the Work Completion Certificates dated September 2, 2019, at page 24 to the writ petition and the last one is May 6, 2022, at page 39 to the writ petition. No objection or demur was raised as against the work done by the petitioner by the concerned municipality. The petitioner has raised his running bills and a part payment for a sum of Rs.22,48,000/- has been made to the petitioner in pro tanto satisfaction of the claim of the petitioner as would be evident from page 39 to the writ petition. The petitioner claims the balance amount of Rs.22,90,039/-

2. Learned Advocate Mr. Satarudriya Mukherjee appearing for the concerned municipality has drawn attention of this Court to the various requests dated March 2, 2020 at page 54 to the writ petition, August 22, 2023 at page 51 to the writ petition and the last one January 10, 2025 at page 49 to the writ petition made before the respondent no.3 for release of fund so that the entire balance claimed by the petitioner can be paid off as the concerned municipality is satisfied with the work completely done by the petitioner arising out of the said Work Order. The office of the respondent no.4 has also issued an acknowledgement in this regard dated August 23, 2023 at page 52 to the writ petition.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Hirak Barman, appearing for the State submits that, funds are not sanctioned project-wise but in bulk against a particular municipality. Since further Government approval has not been received, fund could not be released. He submits that it is the responsibility of the municipality to make the payment, as the work order was issued by it.

4. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, the series of events stated above, would show the admission of jural relationship between the concerned municipality and the petitioner to the effect that, the concerned municipality has issued the tender and the Work Order in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has completed the work without any objection raised by the concerned municipality. Thus, the entire work has been admitted to have been executed to the satisfaction of the concerned municipality without any objection.

5. When the tender was floated and the Work Order was issued and the work has been done successfully, it is the legal obligation on the part of the concerned municipality to pay the entire billed amount to the petitioner. More so, when the part payment has been made in 2018, it shows the admission and acknowledgement of liability towards the petitioner. At this juncture, neither the State nor the concerned municipality can deny release of the balance payment which is otherwise an admitted sum. The requests made by the municipality to the respondent no.3 to release payment further show an admission of liability towards the petitioner against the work done by it.

6. In the facts of this case, since admitted sum is due and payable to the petitioner, such sum is the property of the petitioner and withholding it without due process of law is a clear violation of the right of the petitioner guaranteed under Constitution.

7. When an Article 12 authority fails to discharge its obligations and duties, in the manner stated above and thereby the right of a party is infringed, this Constitutional Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has plenary power to direct such Article 12 authority to discharge its obligations and duties to prevent the infringement of right of the party.

8.In view of the above, the balance sum of Rs.22,90,039/- along with interest @6% per annum since the first letter of request