S/L 118 17.09.2026 Court. No. 25 suvayan WPA 28899 of 2025 Madhumita Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Public Works Department, Government of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya Mr. Tanish Gaheriwala Mr. Anil Dhar Mr. Debabrata Das Ms. Neelanjana Ghorui Ms. Anusmita Bhattacharya …for the petitioners. Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee Mr. Badal Singh Mr. Bikramjit Mandal …for the State. 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ application challenging the impugned order dated November 19, 2025 wherein the representation of the petitioners is rejected. 2. Initially the petitioners have filed a writ application before this Court, the same was dismissed on the ground that the writ court cannot decide the disputed question of fact. Challenging the said order, the petitioners have preferred an appeal, the appeal was also dismissed. 3. The petitioners have preferred an SLP and the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP filed by the petitioners directed the authorities to consider and dispose of the representation referred by the High Court in the impugned order expeditiously. 4. The petitioners in their representation claims for settlement of supplier and service provider dues, release of earnest money deposits, compensation for idle overheads, payments for works in progress, assessment of unutilized 2 site material, infrastructure investment at the work site and preservation of credentials for the future projects. The authorities have considered the representation of the petitioners and rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that there is no provision for any settlement and so far as the payment of running work is concerned, the running payment upto 19th Running Account bill amounting to Rs. 8,82,72,154/- has already been paid and the earnest money submitted by the petitioners at the time of submitting the tender was converted into the security deposit which was stands forfeited in terms of the Clause 3 of the agreement. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent authorities without considering the documents submitted by the petitioners have rejected the claim of the petitioners. 6. This Court finds that the petitioners have claimed certain dues and compensations and the payment for the works executed by the petitioners. The authorities have considered all the documents submitted by the petitioners and have passed the impugned order. The petitioners have not disclosed any documents in the present writ application whether any dues which the petitioners have raised before the authorities are pending. The petitioners have also not disclosed any documents that what are the works the petitioners have executed and the bill which has been submitted by the petitioners have not been released by the authorities. The petitioners have also not disclosed any documents that the petitioners have hired any 3 machineries for execution of the works which were lying at the site and due to the act of the authorities, the petitioners could not able to utilize the said machineries. 7. The respondents have disputed the claims made by the petitioners. If the petitioners are having any evidence to prove their claims, the same is to be proved before the appropriate court of law by producing evidence. The writ court cannot decide the disputed question of fact. 8. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities dated November 19, 2025. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 10. However, the dismissal of the writ petition will not prevent the petitioners to take appropriate steps before the appropriate Court of law for raising their claim against the respondents in accordance with law. 11. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 12. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)