66 jdt. 14.09.2026 jb. WPA 15913 of 2025 [P. M. Construction vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.] Mr. Snehasish Dey …. For the Petitioner Mr. Anindya Bhattacharya Mr. Yudhisthir Maity …. For the State Learned counsel for the State submits, on instruction, that no report is required to be submitted in this matter. It appears that the petitioner completed the work in terms of work order issued in favour of the petitioner by the Block Development Officer, Suti I Block on 30th October, 2023. The bills raised by the petitioner are yet to be cleared. Learned counsel for the State submits that the work order was placed by the Block Development Officer, Suti I Development under the Swachha Bharat mission though the said scheme does not provide for construction of drains. In view of the fact that the work order was issued by the Block Development Officer in favour of the petitioner pursuant to which the petitioner has completed the work satisfactorily, he cannot be made to suffer for any irregularity on the part of the Block Development Officer, for no fault on his part. The bills have remained due for a considerable period of time. 2 The District Magistrate, Murshidabad being the 3rd respondent herein, is directed to provide necessary allotment to the Block Development Officer, Suti I Development Block, being the 7th respondent herein, for clearance of the entire due of the petitioner within 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order. The 7th respondent is directed to disburse the said amount in favour of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt thereof. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit has been invited, allegations contained in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified website copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of requisite formalities (Suvra Ghosh, J.)