12.08.2026 Court No. 12 Item No. 01 Sandip MAT 2027 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2024 CAN 2 of 2024 Shyamal Chandra Dolai Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Supratic Roy, Mr. Taraknath Jaiswal …for the Appellant. Mr. Sushanta Dutta, Ms. Adrisnata Chakraborty … for the State. Re : CAN 1 of 2024 1. CAN 1 of 2024 is an application for condonation of delay of 47 days in preferring the appeal. 2. Considering the submissions in paragraphs 2 to 5 of the said application, we are satisfied that the delay has been sufficiently explained. 3. The delay iscondoned. 4. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2024 is allowed. 5. The appeal is registered. Re : MAT 2027 of 2024 6. The appeal arises out of an order dated May 21, 2024 passed in W.P.A. 14203 of 2024. 7. By the order impugned, His Lordship rejected the money claim of the appellant on the ground that the disputed questions of facts which had arisen, could only be adjudicated upon evidence. His Lordship granted liberty to the appellant to approach the Civil Court. 8. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that, in contractual matters between a private individual and the State, a Writ Court can direct payment. It is further submitted that although His Lordship had directed the NOC to be granted within 15 days from the date of disposal of the writ petition, but no such NOC had been granted. On account of failure on the part of the authority to supply the required NOC, the appellant was suffering financial loss. It is also submitted that, although the work order was not extended, the appellant was asked to continue to deploy his vehicle at the office in which it was engaged and the authority had regularly used the said vehicle. Bills were accordingly raised. 9. Mr. Dutta, learned advocate submits on behalf of the State on instruction that, no work order could be produced for the subsequent stage. The period in respect of which the bills were claimed were not included in any work order. The logbook was also not furnished. Under such circumstances, the contention of the appellant that the authority continuously used the vehicle could not be accepted to be true and correct. 10. We find from the reasoned order passed by the authority that, the appellant was unable to produce any document in support of use of the vehicle by the office of the respondents after March 2020. The order records that, the logbook was not found with the bills which the appellant allegedly claimed to be submitted for the 2 period between April 2020 to August 2021. Accordingly, the claim of Rs. 2,47,350/- as hiring charges for the period from April 2020 to August 2021, was rejected. 11. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, we agree with His Lordship that, the money claim is not admitted. In contractual matters, the money claim can be allowed by the writ Court provided the same is not disputed and the records reveal that the money is payable. In this case, the specific contention of the respondents is that, there were no documents in support of the fact that the appellant was continuing to provide the vehicle for use of the concerned office of the respondents on and from April 2020 to August 2021, were available. 12. Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to pass any order by interfering with the order of His Lordship. His Lordship’s order is upheld. 13. Liberty was granted to the appellant to approach the Civil Court, on the self-same cause of action. 14. However, we make it clear that, if the NOC has not been granted by the respondents as directed by His Lordship, the NOC shall be furnished to the appellant within two weeks. Cost of Rs. 1 Lakh shall be paid within the aforementioned period for the loss of business caused to the appellant for not-grant of the NOC. In the event it is found that the NOC had been furnished, cost will not be paid. A communication to that effect shall be given by the concerned officer to the appellant, indicating the date on 3 which the NOC had be furnished and the receipt showing acceptance of the same by the appellant. 15. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of. 16. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.) 4