IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) WPA 12787 of 2018 Sumit Enterprise Proprietorship Vs Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation & Ors. For the Petitioners : Mr. Amlan Kumar Mukherjee. For the BMC : Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Mr. Tirthankar Dey, Mr. Arka Kr. Nag. Hearing concluded on : 07.01.2025 Judgment on : 07.01.2025 Page 2 SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. : 1. The present writ petition has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondents to take steps in terms of the representation of the petitioner dated 22/08/2016 and release the payment that the petitioner is liable to receive from the respondent authorities for the work done and the security deposits. 2. The petitioner’s case is that he is a contractor working in the field of civil construction, who used to work frequently with the erstwhile Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality, now Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation. 3. It is further stated that the respondent authorities called for tender at different times for either development and/or repairing and/or construction and/or improvement of different projects and the petitioner participated in such tenders. The petitioner quoted the lowest figure in a number of such tenders and thus became successful in the tender process. Subsequently work orders were issued in favour of the petitioner by the respondent authorities from time to time against the successful bids. The petitioner executed the said work with utmost diligence complying with all the formalities of the Municipality and within the specified time. Petitioner states that the petitioner company started working as a contactor of Page 3 the Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality from the year 2009 and submitted the respective bills to the Municipality immediately after completion of the projects. 4. It is further stated that from 2000 to 2011 the petitioner participated in a number of such tenders, even though his bills were not properly paid by the respondent authorities during this period. 5. It is further stated that for each work to be undertaken, a fraction of the bill is withheld by the Municipality till the liability period is over. The same may be termed as security deposit and in case of the petitioner the same was supposed to be followed. But to add to the petitioner's woes, even after the liability period was over, the respondent authorities did not bother to pay the said security deposit and in total the petitioner is supposed to receive Rs. 3,53,717/- as security deposit from the respondent authorities. 6. That, ventilating his grievances, the petitioner sent a series of representations to the respondent authorities from 16/10/2014 to 22/08/2016 complaining about the attitude of the respondent authority in withholding the bills and the security deposit. Page 4 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation submits that the petitioner has filed documents to show that he has worked as per work orders granted to them by the Rajarhat-Gopalpur Municipality. From the year 2000, the said Municipality has been included under the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation. 8. It is further stated that the work orders by which the petitioner was supposed to carry out the work was not completed by the petitioner thus causing loss and damage to the Municipality. 9. It is also submitted that the dispute in the present case relates to amounts due for work carried out and the same is a demand which is civil in nature and the remedy of the petitioner lies in the Civil Court, as the claim is a money claim. 10. Both parties have filed their written notes of argument and relied upon certain judgments. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court passed in WP 14596(W) of 2014 dated 20th August, 2014. 11. The learned counsel for the Municipality has relied upon the following judgments:- (i) Tek Chand vs Union of India reported in 2002 SCC Online Del 680. Page 5 (ii) Sanjay Sitaram Khemka v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 255. (iii) Orissa Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. and others vs. Bharati Industries and others, reported at (2005) 12 SCC 725. (iv) Godavari Sugar Mills Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported at (2011) 2 SCC 439. (v) Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Ravi Udyog and others, reported at 1994 Supp (2) SCC 466. (vi) Bareilly Development Authority and another vs. Ajai Pal Singh and others, reported at (1989) 2 SCC 116. (vii) Noharlal Verma vs District Co-Operative Central Bank Limited AIR 2009 SC 664 Para 27. (viii) A.P. SRTC and Ors vs G. Srinivas Reddy and Ors (2006) 3 SCC 674 Para 19. (ix) WPA No. 16357 of 2023 [Jaya Construction & Company and another Vs. State of West Bengal and others]. Page 6 (x) Sanjay Sitaram Khemka v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 255. 12. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides and the materials on record, it appears that the petitioner’s representation since the year 2016 is pending with the respondent authorities which presently is the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation. 13. In the present writ petition the petitioner’s case is that he participated in a number of tenders from the year 2000-2011 and received work orders and completed the work as per the terms in the work orders but the Municipality has withheld his bills for the said period. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation, the respondents herein, shall consider the representation of the petitioner within 60 days from the date of this order, on hearing the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order. 15. A copy of the outcome of the said hearing shall be informed to the petitioner herein. 16. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. Page 7 17. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 18. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously after due compliance. [Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.]