Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Tripura · body

2026 DAILYLAW 23 (TRI)

Sri Utpal Datta v. The State of Tripura and 4 Others

WP(C)/14/2026 · 2026-01-15

T Amarnath Goud

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_ WP(C) No.14 of 2026 1. Sri Utpal Datta, son of late Upendra Chandra Datta, resident of Lake Road, Haradhan Sangha, Krishnanagar, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District: West Tripura. …..Petitioner _V_E_R_S_U_S_ 1. The State of Tripura represented by the Secretary, Public Works Department, New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura. 2. Chief Engineer, PWD (D.W.S.) Government of Tripura, Nehru Complex, Gorkhabasti, Agartala, West Tripura. 3. Superintendent Engineer, DWS Circle, Agartala, Government of Tripura, Nehru Complex, Gorkhabasti, Agartala, West Tripura. 4. The Executive Engineer, DWS Division, Public Works Department, Government of Tripura, Kalyanpur, Khowai Tripura-799203. 5. Assistant Engineer, DWS Sub-division, Kalyanpur, Public Works Department, Government of Tripura, Kalyanpur, Khowai Tripura-799203. …..Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, G.A. HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD _F_I_N_A_L_O_ R_ D_ E_ R_ 15.01.2026 Heard. [2] The present petition has been filed under Article-226 of the Constitution of India directing the State respondents to release an amount of Rs.11,47,412/- [3rd and final RA Bill] along with interest @12% per annum w.e.f. 29.11.2024, Rs.13,871/- as interest @12% per annum against the amount of Rs.2,93,000/- w.e.f. 06.05.2024 to 27.09.2024 and Rs.2,10,888/- as interest @12% per annum against the amount of Rs.27,27,042/- for the period from 06.05.2024 to 24.12.2024 in favour of the petitioner. [3] The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordship would graciously be pleased to issue Rule upon the respondents to show cause as to why the respondents should not transmit all records relating to the case of the petitioner. AND As to why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued directing the State respondents to release an amount of Rs.11,47,412/- [3rd and final RA Bill] along with interest @12% per annum w.e.f. 29.11.2024, Rs.13,871/- as interest @12% per annum against the amount of Rs.2,93,000/- w.e.f. 06.05.2024 to 27.09.2024 and Rs.2,10,888/- as interest @12% per annum against the amount of Rs.27,27,042/- for the period from 06.05.2024 to 24.12.2024 in favour of the petitioner. AND As to why such other order/orders should not be passed so as to give full relief to the petitioner and, upon causes shown, to make the Rule absolute.” [4] The facts in brief are that an agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent No.4 for coverage component under JJM Scheme during the year 2020-21 & 2021-22/SH construction of two numbers pump house, installation of pump motor, laying of pipe line and providing of FHTC under DWS Sub-division, Kalyanpur (Gr.-II). The petitioner successfully completed his work on 01.10.2024 but, the respondents without any valid reason has arbitrarily withheld the 3rd RA and last bill amounting to Rs.11,47,412/- and did not release Rs.13,871/- as interest @12% per annum against the amount of Rs.2,93,000/- w.e.f. 06.05.2024 to 27.09.2024 and Rs.2,10,888/- as interest @12% per annum against the amount of Rs.27,27,042/- for the period from 06.05.2024 to 24.12.2024 in favour of the petitioner even after successful completion of the work. [5] Hence, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner before this Court for redress. [6] In view of above and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the matter is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for taking appropriate decision in accordance law. The said decision be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. However, it is made clear that whatever the decision is taken by the concerned authority, the same may be communicated to the petitioner. [7] In that view of the matter, the present petition stands disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous application, pending if any, shall stand closed. DR.T. AMARNATH GOUD, J A. Ghosh ANJAN GHOSH Digitally signed by ANJAN GHOSH Date: 2026.01.19 14:05:17 +05'30'