Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury WPA 27206 of 2025 KARTICK SAHA VS RAIGANJ MUNICIPALITY AND ORS with WPA 1791 of 2026 DEBITALA CO-OPERATIVE LABOUR CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD AND ANR. VS RAIGANJ MUNICIPALITY AND ORS. with WPA 1792 of2026 DIPANKAR SAHA VS RAIGANJ MUNICIPALITY AND ORS. with WPA 1794 of 2026 BIDYUT SARKAR VS RAIGANJ MUNICIPALITY AND ORS. with WPA 27208 of 2025 PRASUN GUHA VS RAIGANJ MUNICIPALITY AND ORS. with WPA 27209 of 2025 ASHISH KARMAKAR VS RAIGANJ MUNICIPALITY AND ORS. 2 WPA 27206 of 2025 with WPA 27210 of 2025 SUBHOMOY DUTTA VS RAIGANJ MUNICIPALITY AND ORS. with WPA 8530 of 2026 GEETANJALI CO-OPERATIVE CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LIMITED AND ANR. VS RAIGANJ MUNICIPALITY AND ORS with WPA 4841 of 2026 INVENTION CO-OPERATIVE LABOUR CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LIMITED AND ANR. VS RAIGANJ MUNICIPALITY AND ORS with WPA 4843 of 2026 CORTES INFRASTRUCTURE AND ANR. VS RAIGANJ MUNICIPALITY AND ORS For the petitioners : Mr. Gautam Kumar Thakur For the Administrator/ : Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv. Municipality Mr. Suman Banerjee For the State : Mr. Dinesh Chandra Singh in WPA 27206/2025 Mr. Ghanshyam Pandey For the State : Mr. Dipendra Narayan Roy, Ld. GP in WPA 1791/2026 Ms. Susmita Saha Mr. Sourav Haldar For the State : Ms. Swastika Dutta in WPA 27210/2025 Mr. Mainak Chandra For the State : Mr. Sovan Mukherjee in WPA 8530/2026 Ms. Sneha Chatterjee 3 WPA 27206 of 2025 For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee in WPA 1794/2026 Mr. A. Narayan Banerjee WPA/1792/2026 Mr. G. Acharyya WPA 27208/2025 For the State : Ms. Suchitra Sinha Chatterjee in WPA 27209 of 2025 Heard on : 19.08.2026 & 21.09.2026. Judgment on : 21.09.2026. Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral): 1. The instant batch of writ petitions are taken up for consideration together as the same concern a common cause. 2. The petitioners claim to be either contractors or are proprietors of concerns who are engaged in the business of civil engineering works. The petitioners claim to have executed certain works on the basis of work orders issued by the Raiganj Municipality. It is also the petitioners’ contention that though after execution of the works they had prayed for disbursement of bills, unfortunately, according to the petitioners due to dissolution of the Municipal Board, the State Government had appointed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raiganj, as an administrator of the municipality. The newly appointed administrator had enquired into diverse allegations, including the allegation against the erstwhile Chairman in awarding work orders in violation of the established norms and prescribed procedure. 3. According to the petitioners, criminal proceedings were also initiated which culminated into a criminal trial and upon conclusion of trial, the Chairman was ultimately acquitted by the competent Court by an order 4 WPA 27206 of 2025 dated 30th April, 2024. The petitioners would complain that by reasons of pendency of the criminal proceedings, the legitimate dues of the petitioners were withheld. According to the petitioners, immediately upon conclusion of the work as aforesaid under the different wards of the municipality, the then Chief Engineer, Municipal Engineer Directorate (in short, MED) passed an order on 21st December, 2018, directing the Executive Engineer (MED) Raiganj Division to enquire into and make field level enquiry of 269 number of schemes which had already been implemented during the Chairmanship of the erstwhile Chairman. Following the above, a report was submitted by the Executive Engineer (MED), Government of West Bengal, with the Chief Engineer, MED, Bikash Bhawan, by a cover letter dated 16th May, 2019. 4. The learned advocate representing the petitioners by drawing attention of this Court to the aforementioned report would submit that as per enquiry report, the status of works against the respective works executed by the petitioners would show that the same had duly been completed. To morefully appreciate the same, the names of the petitioners, their serial numbers along with NIT particulars and the work status are extracted from the enquiry report: - Names of the Petitioners Serial No. – NIT Particulars Work Status WPA 27206 of 2025 KARTICK SAHA 143 – 600/PWD-III/RM/2015-16 Dt. 01/02/16 Gr.M. 145 – 600/PWD-III/RM/2015-16 Dt. 01/02/16 Gr.M. 146 – 600/PWD-III/RM/2015-16 Dt. 01/02/16 Gr.N. Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section 5 WPA 27206 of 2025 147 – 600/PWD-III/RM/2015-16 Dt. 01/02/16 Gr.L. 207 – 42/PWD-II/RM/2015, Dt. 14/07/15 Gr.C 209 – 42/PWD-II/RM/2015, Dt. 14/07/15 Gr.C Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section All work has been completed and also submitted in Account Section since a long period All work has been completed and also submitted in Account Section since a long period WPA 1791 of 2026 DEBITALA CO- OPERATIVE LABOUR CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD AND ANR. 11 – 35/PWD-III/RM/2015-16 Dt. 02.05.2015 Gr.AD. 141 – 440/PWD-III/RM/2015-16 Dt. 02/11/15 Gr.P. 144 – 600/PWD-III/RM/2015-16 Dt. 1/2/2016 Gr.G. 167 – 615/PWD-III/RM/2015-16 Dt. 10/02/2016 Gr.P. 180 – 401/PWD-III/RM/2014-15 Dt. 04/02/2015 Gr.A 239 – 440/PWD-III/RM/2015-16, Grp - N. 243 – 600/PWD-III/RM/2015-16, Grp - G. Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Service Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section Work completed and bill submitted to the Accounts Section Partially completed and (1st RA) bill submitted to the Accounts Section Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section WPA 1792 of 2026 DIPANKAR SAHA 240 – 440/PWD-III/RM/2015-16, Grp - X. Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section WPA 1794 of 2026 BIDYUT SARKAR 14 – 494/PWD-III/RM/2013 Dt. 06/11/2013 Gr.E. 192 – 06(1)/PWD/RM/15, Dt. 06/11/2013 Gr.E. 192 – 06(1)/PWD/RM/15, Dt. 28/05/15, Gr.Y Work has been completed and Forwarded to Account Section Work has been completed and Forwarded to Account Section for bill payment WPA 27208 of 2025 PRASUN GUHA 201 – 43/PWD-II/RM/-15 Dt. 15/12/2015 Gr.A. 202 – 45/PWD-II/RM/15, Dt. 26/05/2016, Gr.F. 228 – 42/PWD-II/RM/2015, Dt. 14/07/2015, Gr-G. 254 – 569/PWD-III/RM/2015-16 Gr-K. All work has been completed and also submitted in Account Section since a long period All work has been completed and also submitted in Account Section since a long period All work has been completed and also submitted in Account Section since a long period area Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section WPA 27209 of 2025 ASHISH KARMAKAR 21 –160/PWD-III/RM/2015-16 Dt. 30.06.2015, Gr. E. 28 – 35/PWD-II/RM/2015-16 Dt. 02/05/2015, Gr. AE. 48 – 162/PWD-111/RM/2015-16 Dt. 30/06/2015, Gr. C. 54 – 160/PWD-III/RM/2015-16 Dt. 30/06/2015, Gr. A. 203 – 45/PWD-II/RM/15 Dt. 26/05/2016, Gr. F. Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section Work has been completed and forwarded to the Account Section Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section All Work has been completed and also submitted in Account Section since a long period 6 WPA 27206 of 2025 205 – 43/PWD-II/RM/15 Dt. 15/12/2015, Gr. G. 214 – 475/PWD-III/RM/2015-16 Dated 08/12/15, Gr. A. All Work has been completed and also submitted in Account Section since a long period All Work has been completed and also submitted in Account Section since a long period WPA 27210 of 2025 SUBHOMOY DUTTA 28 – 35/PWD-II/RM/2015-16 Dt. 02/05/2015 Gr.AE 250 – 615/PWD-III/RM/2015-16 Grp-N 264 – 75/PWD-III/RM/2016-17 Grp. B Work has been completed and forwarded to the Account Section Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section WPA 8530 of 2026 GEETANJALI CO- OPERATIVE CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LIMITED AND ANR. 25 – 123/PWD-III/RM/2015-16 Dt: 11/06/2015 224 – 35/PWD-III/RM/2015-16 Dt 02/05/2015, Gr. V. Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section WPA 4841 of 2025 INVENTION CO- OPERATIVE LABOUR CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LIMITED AND ANR. 27 – 375/PWD-III/RM/2014-15 Dt: 06/01/2015, Grp. H 41 – 201(AYPWD-III/RM/2015-16 Dt: 14/07/2015, Grp. B. 52 – 238(10)/PWD/RM/13 Dt: 10/02/14, Gr. C. 62 – 435/PWD-111/RM/2014-15 Dt: 07/03/2013, Gr. C. 75 – 436/PWD-III/RM/2015-16 Dt: 07/03/2015. 109 – 434/PWD-III/RM/2014-15 Dt: 07/03/2015 125 – 35/PWDII/RM/15-16, De 02/11/15 Gr. AB 139 – 440/PWD-III/RM/2015-16, Dt. 02/11/2015 Gr. G 185 – 06(1)/PWD/RM/15, Dt. 28/05/15 Gr. J 186 – 06(1)/PWD/RM/15, Dt. 28/05/15 Gr. H 222 – 365/PWD-III/RM/2015-16, Dt. 07/09/2015 Gr. A 232 – 160/PWD-III/RM/2015-16, Gr. P 234 – 160/PWD-III/RM/2015-16, Gr. R Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section for bill payment Work has been completed and forwarded to the Account Section Work has been completed and bill submitted to the Account Section Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section Work has been completed and Forwarded to Account Section for bill payment Work has been completed and Forwarded to Account Section for bill payment Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section 7 WPA 27206 of 2025 267 – 100(10)/PWD/RM 16, Dt. 10/2/16 Gr. D 268 – 100(10)/PWD/RM 16, Dt. 10/2/16 Gr. D Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section for bill payment Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section for bill payment WPA 4843 of 2026 CORTES INFRASTRUCTURE AND ANR. 86 – 440/PWD-III/RM/2014-15 Dt: 2/11/2015, Gr. AC 225 – 440/PWD-III/RM/2015-16, Dt. 02/11/2015, Gr - AB Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section Work completed and bill submitted to the Account Section 5. By relying on the above chart, it is submitted that in identical set of facts one of the contractors had approached this Court in WPA 17176 of 2023. The said writ petition was disposed of by directing the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs to take a decision in the matter. Following the aforesaid, the concerned Secretary to the Government of West Bengal had passed an order dated 18th December, 2023 by observing as under:- “ On examination of the submission of the petitioners, representatives of the Raiganj Municipality and available office records/documents, it appears that; (i) The works in question were undertaken by Raiganj Municipality out of its own capacity. As per official record, it is found that no Administrative Approval and Financial Sanction (AA& FS) was issued from this Department. Hence, this Department cannot take any liability for payment of works for which no Administrative Approval and Financial Sanction (AA&FS) was taken by the municipality. (ii) After several years of completion of the said works, the Municipality approached before this Department for release of fund. The procedure followed for execution of the works as beyond existing financial and technical norms, hence a physical enquiry was directed to be 8 WPA 27206 of 2025 conducted by Municipal Engineering Directorate vide this Department’s letter no. 147(Law)-C12/M/3S- 37/2018 dated 16.08.2018. Therefore, it could not be considered for post-facto approval. (iii) The enquiry was conducted on 16.05.2019 by the Municipal Engineering Directorate under the Urban Development and Municipal Affairs Department, Government of West Bengal. (iv) The Raiganj Municipality, being the Respondent No.1 was the Tender issuing authority and the work order was issued by the respondent no.1. (v) At the time of conducting the enquiry by the Municipal Engineering Directorate under the Urban Development and Municipal Affairs Department, Government of West Bengal, the respondent no.1 was duly informed prior to the same and the Chairman of the Respondent no.1 has duly endorsed the concluding page of the enquiry report. (vi) The enquiry report was also forwarded to the respondent no.1 by the Executive Engineer, Dinajpur Division, Municipal Engineering Directorate vide a Memo bearing No. MED/DJP/67/V-3/2016, Pt. 1 dated 16.05.2019. (vii) As per present prevailing procedure, before commencing a scheme/project the concerned Urban Local Bodies is to submit a Detailed Project Report (DPR) properly vetted by the Competent Authority with updated G.S.T. rate along with a copy of Resolution of Board of Councillors for obtaining Administrative Approval and Financial Sanction (AA&FS). In the instant case, this procedure had not been followed by Rauganj Municipality. After several years of completion of the said works, the Municipality approached before this Department for release of fund which cannot be considered at present on post facto basis. 9 WPA 27206 of 2025 In view of the above, it is stated that the liability to clear the dues to the petitioner for the works executed by Raiganj Municipality on its own initiative without prior approval of State Government, is upon Raiganj Municipality itself. State Government cannot take the liability to release of fund for implementation of schemes for which no Administrative Approval and Financial Sanction (AA&FS) was issued. ” 6. Being aggrieved with the denial of liability by the State on the ground that the works executed by the petitioner therein at the instance of the Raiganj Municipality were without the approval of the Government and as such the Government cannot be held liable to release the funds for implementation of scheme for which no Administrative Approval and Financial Sanction (AA&FS) was issued, a writ petition was filed before this Court which was registered as WPA 3255 of 2024. By an order dated 17th April, 2025, a Coordinate Bench of this Court while taking note of the peculiar facts and noting that in a welfare State, the Government is expected to play a parental role towards its citizens, particularly in matters concerning welfare, protection and infrastructure development, and following the principles and the doctrine of parens patriae and also noting that the municipality functions as a parastatal body acting on behalf of the State in a delegated capacity and in the given facts there can be no dispute that the benefits of the works which had been completed without any objection regarding quality or process, are presently being enjoyed by the citizens of the State, directed the Principal Secretary, 10 WPA 27206 of 2025 Government of West Bengal to ensure that the verified amount is disbursed in favour of the petitioner within the time frame specified. 7. Being aggrieved, the Raiganj Municipality preferred an appeal which was registered as MAT 896 of 2025. By an order dated 14th July, 2025, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court had directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of West Bengal to be arrayed as party respondent to the said proceedings. The appeal thereafter was heard and was dismissed by the said order, inter alia, observing as follows: “What has weighed with this Court in agreeing with the Single Bench is that the completion certificate of the works has been issued by the State. An authority under the State has conducted an enquiry. An official of the Municipal Affairs Department of the State, inter alia, has issued a report dated 16th May, 2019 which has clearly found that the work entrusted and undertaken by the petitioner have been completed. The State could not prove in the criminal trial against the erstwhile Chairman any of the allegations against him. Indeed, the State has preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal before this Court. In the backdrop of the above facts, especially that the writ petitioner has completed works in question and has delivered the same to the satisfaction of the State Government, the State Government in terms of the principles of unjust enrichment, quantum meruit under Section 70 of the Contract Act is liable to the writ petitioner. The State cannot absolve itself of its liability in the backdrop of the above. The State cannot unjustly enrich itself for works done for its benefit. The citizens of the Municipality used and continue to use the works done. Roads, public buildings and the hospitals constructed by the writ petitioner. Criminal proceedings against the then Chairman have failed in the first instance. 11 WPA 27206 of 2025 The principle of quantum merit would apply in the cases of works done without a contract. There is in such cases a deemed/implied agreement with the State. The Doctrine of Public Trust also comes to play in the facts of this case. The principle against unjust enrichment and restitution have been explained at Paragraph 8 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir Kishore and Ors. Vs. State of MP reported in (1989) 4 SCC 1. “8. The question is what was the law applicable to the case. “Nul ne doit senrichir aux depens des autres”—No one ought to enrich himself at the expense of others. This doctrine at one stage of English common law was remedied by “indebitatus assumpsit” which action lay for money “had and received to the use of the plaintiff”. It lay to recover money paid under a mistake, or extorted from the plaintiff by duress of his goods, or paid to the defendant on a consideration which totally failed. On abolition of “indebitatus assumpsit” courts used to imply a promise to pay which, however, in course of time was held to be purely fictitious. Lord Mansfied in Moses v. Macferlan [(1760) 2 Burr 1005, 1012] explained the juridical basis of the action for money “had and received” thus: “This kind of equitable action, to recover back money, which ought not in justice to be kept, is very beneficial, and therefore much encouraged. It lies only for money which, „ex aequo et bono‟, the defendant ought to refund; it does not lie for money paid by the plaintiff, which is claimed of him as payable in point of honour and honesty, although it could not have been recovered from him by any course of law; as in payment of a debt barred by the Statute of Limitations, or contracted during his infancy, or to the extent of principal and legal interest upon a usurious contract, or, for money fairly lost at play; because in all these cases, the defendant may retain it with a safe conscience, though by positive law he was barred from recovering. But it lies for money paid by mistake; or upon a consideration which happens to fail; or for money got through imposition (express or 12 WPA 27206 of 2025 implied); or extortion; or oppression; or an undue advantage taken of the plaintiff's situation, contrary to laws made for the protection of persons under those circumstances. In one word, the gist of this kind of action is, that the defendant, upon the circumstances of the case, is obliged by the ties of natural justice and equity to refund the money.” There is one argument that comes to the mind of this Court that could have been advanced by the State. Matters of this nature must be decided in a civil proceeding by trial and evidence. Exceptions thereto have been carved out in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553 and narrowed down to some extent in the case of Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 728 . This case, in the opinion of this Court, clearly falls within such exception. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal fails and hereby dismissed. Consequently, all connected pending applications, if any, are also dismissed. The impugned order is modified to a limited extent that the Raiganj Municipality shall be liable to pay the appellant as directed by the Single Bench upon funds being put in by the State. The Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal, the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of West Bengal and the Chairman, Raiganj Municipality shall be responsible for complying with this order. Needless to mention that the direction of the Single Bench that the quantum of claim of the writ petitioner may be reassessed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal, Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of West Bengal and the Chairman, Raiganj Municipality. 13 WPA 27206 of 2025 The time frame for complying with the above is extended by a period of one month from date.” 8. The matter did not rest there, the Government did not comply with the direction for ensuring payment. A review application was filed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal which was registered as RVW 285 of 2025, the same was taken up for consideration by keeping the contempt application pending. Though, the explanation provided for delay was not acceptable, however, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court for the ends of justice by condoning the delay by an order dated 19th September, 2025 had taken up the hearing of the review application. The review was filed primarily on the ground that the Raiganj Municipality had not taken prior approval under Section 73(A) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) prior to issuance of the work order and the completion certificate to the appellant for implementation of 271 schemes within the municipality. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by the aforesaid order was however, pleased to observe that construction work for which tender was floated and awarded to the petitioner was for construction of roads, hostels and other municipal buildings for the benefit of the citizens of Raiganj Municipality. The work in question also covered under 271 schemes within the municipality and was sponsored by the State Government. As such the State was obliged to fund under Section 71(A) of the said Act. The issue of seeking approval of the State Government had already been dealt with in 14 WPA 27206 of 2025 the judgment dated 14th July, 2025 and also noting that the State itself had conducted an enquiry into the matter, the Court found that there was no sufficient ground for maintaining the review from the order dated 14th July, 2025 and accordingly, dismissed the same. 9. Records would reveal that this Court by order dated 11th February 2026 had directed the municipality to take instructions on the aforesaid enquiry report appearing in the writ petition. The municipality was also directed to ascertain as to whether the works were executed. Pursuant to such direction, the municipality had filed a report on 1st August 2026. 10. In such report the municipality has confirmed the factum of execution of the work. Since then, the matter has been taken up for final consideration. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the State has drawn attention of this Court to Section 72 of the said Act and would submit that the municipal authorities are not incompetent and not powerless to generate funds in fact, the municipal authorities are also empowered to seek loan for defraying their expenses and as such the State Government cannot be saddled with the liability to make payment of the expense incurred by the municipality. He has next by drawing attention of this Court to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court had attempted to submit that the works executed in such case were covered under the Scheme though in the present case, the works are not covered under the Scheme. He has also drawn attention of this Court the provisions of Section 429 as also the provisions of Section 75 of the said Act and would submit in the given facts the State Government 15 WPA 27206 of 2025 cannot be saddled with the responsibility to make payment for the expenses incurred by the municipality. 11. Reliance has also been placed by Mr. Banerjee on the judgment delivered in the case of Madhoor Buildwell Private Limited v. Yeola Municipal Council & Ors., reported in (2019) 9 SCC 350, to highlight the fact that without appropriate approval from the Government the Government cannot be made liable for the expenses incurred. To distinguish the judgment delivered in the case of Raiganj Municipality & Ors. v. Nandalal Saha & Ors., in MAT 896 of 2025, he has placed before this Court an unreported judgment delivered in the case of the State of West Bengal & Ors. v. I Sustain Energy Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in FMA 385 of 2023 and the case of Amjad Hossain v. State of West Bengal & Ors., having neutral citation 2025:CHC-JP:201. The above judgments have been relied on to hold out that the municipality has ample power to generate own funds and as such the State Government cannot be made liable. 12. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the municipality has drawn attention of this Court to the report filed by the executive engineer, would submit from the aforesaid repot it would be apparent that though, the works were executed apart from having a few several works vetted to Zilla Parishad, the other works were not approved by the State Government. Insofar as the execution of work is concerned, he would submit that since municipality have themselves confirmed the execution of works, he has nothing to add. 16 WPA 27206 of 2025 13. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record in the instant case, though Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate has attempted to distinguish the case of Nandalal Saha (supra) by claiming that the works executed therein were covered by 271 Schemes, I find that the enquiry report itself demonstrates that the works which forms subject matter of the writ petition are covered under the self-same enquiry report. 14. Further, the Division Bench has already considered the scope and effect of non-grant of prior approval under Section 73A of the said Act and has arrived at a finding that since the works were covered under the Scheme within the municipality and as sponsored by the State Government, the State Government is obliged to provide funds therefor under Section 71A of the said Act. The issue of seeking prior approval by the State Government had already been dealt with in the judgment dated 14th July, 2025, and also noting that the State itself has conducted an enquiry in the matter, the Division Bench found that there was no sufficient ground for maintaining the review from the order dated 14th July, 2025 and had accordingly dismissed the same. 15. From the respective reports filed in Court and the submissions made, it would be apparent that there is no administrative approval and financial sanction. It is, however, not in dispute that an enquiry had been conducted by the State in respect of the works which have been executed and are covered under the Scheme. The respondents have also acknowledged the same by filing the report under the signature of the 17 WPA 27206 of 2025 Executive Officer. The relevant portions of the reports are extracted hereinbelow: WPA 17206 of 2025 WPA 1791 of 2026 WPA 1792 of 2026 18 WPA 27206 of 2025 WPA 1794 of 2026 WPA 27208 of 2025 WPA 27209 of 2025 WPA 4841 of 2026 19 WPA 27206 of 2025 WPA 4843 of 2026 WPA 27210 of 2025 WPA 8530 of 2026 16. Though Mr. Banerjee learned advocate appearing for the State has attempted to raise the issue that there is no scope for this Court to direct the State to make payment, I find that all the aforesaid issues have been duly covered in the judgment delivered by the Division Bench in the case of Nandalal Saha (supra). I also find that the petitioners’ case lies on 20 WPA 27206 of 2025 the same footing. Admittedly, in the instant case, under the self-same enquiry, the works executed by the petitioners have been identified, the same is noted hereinabove in the chart. The defence of the State as regards non-grant of administrative approval and financial sanction has also been considered and overruled by the Coordinate Bench and the same also has the approval of the Hon’ble Division Bench. Further noting that it is not in dispute that the works executed by the petitioners are without any objection for any quarter and are being enjoyed by the residents of the municipality, I am of the view, in the given facts, it shall be appropriate to direct the Member Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal, Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of West Bengal and the Chairman/Administrator Raiganj Municipality and or any one in control of Raiganj Municipality to disburse the admitted amount as reflected in the report of the municipality in favour of the petitioners on an expeditious basis. The above direction is being issued in the peculiar facts despite noting that the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 provides for financial assistance by the State, but without entering into the realm as to how the state would adjust the said sum, in the light of the observations made in the case of I Sustain Energy (supra) and Yeola Municipal Council (supra). 17. However, the concerned authorities including the Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal affairs and Principal Secretary, Finance Government of West Bengal and the Chairman/ administrator or 21 WPA 27206 of 2025 any person in control of the Raiganj Municipality shall be at liberty to re- assess the quantum in accordance with law. In any event, no legitimate dues shall be held back. The payment as directed should be made within a period of 2 months from the date of communication of this order. 18. With the above observations and directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) Saswata/sayandeep