Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 43451 (CAL)

GAUTAM MUKHERJEE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/25666/2025 · 2026-09-21

Rishad Medora

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

D/L Item No. 17 21.09.2026 KOLE 266462 WPA 25666 of 2025 Gautam Mukherjee -Vs.- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Samiran Mondal, Mr. A. Mondal, … for the petitioner. Mr. Subit Majumdar, Mr. A. Sarkar, Mr. S. Ghosh, … for the State. The petitioner as well as the respondents are represented today. Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that pursuant to a tender, a work order was issued in favour of the petitioner for construction and commissioning of retrofitting works for FHTC (Functional Household Tap Connection) in connection with Jal Jeevan Mission and Jal Swapna for Mouza Bendal, Joytunga, Kostia and Khemna with a scheme value of Rs. 38,44,000/- in two phases. It is submitted that pursuant to such work order, the petitioner duly completed the required work and a completion certificate was issued by the Executive Engineer, Bankura Division, Public Health Engineering Directorate to the petitioner on January 3, 2024. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further submits that despite repeated reminders from the petitioner to the concerned respondents, no payment has been received by the petitioner till date. Learned Advocate for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the 2 Supreme Court reported in (2019) 16 SCC 794 [Surya Constructions vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.] to contend that in a similar situation where a state authority had contended that it did not have money available to make payment in respect of a particular project, the Supreme Court had directed such authority to make payment notwithstanding such stance on the part of the respondent authority. Learned Advocate representing the respondents does not deny the fact that a sum of Rs. 38,44,000/- is due and payable to the petitioner. In terms of the report (“Statement of fact”) filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3 on the last date of hearing, he submits that payment could not be made due to non-availability of funds. It has also been mentioned in the aforesaid report that the petitioner had executed the said work under the Jal Jeevan Mission, a flagship mission launched by the Government of India which is not releasing their legitimate share of central funds to the State of West Bengal since August 2024 and the same has aggravated the situation. He further submits that the State of West Bengal is actively engaged with the Government of India to streamline the fund flow and assures this Court that once the same is done, payment will be made to the petitioner. Learned Advocate representing the respondents prays for three months’ time to ensure that the petitioner is paid his dues. In view of the long passage of time from the date when the petitioner was entitled to be paid, I find that the prayer for three months is unreasonable. The respondent no. 3’s 3 submission that the Government of India is not releasing central funds to the State of West Bengal since August 2024 in connection with the Jal Jeevan Mission is also of no relevance since the petitioner had completed the work much prior to August 2024. The fact that a sum of Rs. 38,44,000/- is due and payable to the petitioner is not disputed. The respondent authorities cannot justify the non-payment on the ground that funds are not available with it. If such be the case, it ought not to have floated a tender or issued a work order. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for no fault on his part. Instrumentalities of the State have to act reasonably, and not arbitrarily. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no. 3 to positively make payment in respect of the petitioner’s dues by November 30, 2026 and intimate him of the same in writing. The petitioner is directed to immediately inform the respondent no. 3 of this order. Since no affidavits are called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to be admitted by the respondents. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order, duly downloaded from the official website of this Court Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities. (Rishad Medora, J.)