11. 28.09.2026. Court No.03. (Pritam) WPA 25122 of 2026. Apurba Dasgupta. -Vs.- State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Manab Kumar Gupta, Ms. Moumita Gupta. .....for the petitioner. Mr. Tapas Kr. Chatterjee, Ld. AGP., Mr. Sailen Naskar. ......for the State. Mr. Achintya Kr. Banerjee (VC), Ms. Indumouli Banerjee. ......for the municipality. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to disburse the outstanding dues of the petitioner to the extent of Rs.5,80,825/- on account of security deposit deducted from the bills of the petitioner pertaining to execution of civil work within the Bishnupur Municipality. 3. It is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. D.G. Construction. The concerned proprietorship firm of the petitioner is engaged in the business as contractor and general order supplier. The business is run in the name and style of “M/s. D.G. Construction”. 2 4. The petitioner claims to have participated in a tender published by the Bishnupur Municipality for “laying of HDPE pipe” in the distribution system for the proposed water supply system at Zone-I, Zone-II & Zone – IV of Bishnupur Municipality under the BRGF (Spl.). The petitioner having become successful, three separate work orders were issued. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner upon completion and due execution of the work, bills were raised in respect of the aforesaid works which are executed pursuant to the above work-orders. 5. According to the petitioner, as per the contractual terms, part-payment was also made by retaining the security deposit of Rs.2,31,693/-, Rs.1,78,576/- and Rs.2,65,089/- aggregating to Rs.6,75,358/- from the bills. The petitioner’s case further proceeds on the premise that the respondent nos.2 and 3 had since, on the basis of a recommendation for refund of security deposit issued by the respondent no.4, paid a sum of Rs.94,533/- on 17th December, 2024 to the petitioner against the security deposit lying with the respondent no.2 in respect of the bill for Zone – II, thereby retaining an amount of Rs.5,80,825/-. 6. The particulars of the works executed, and the bills raised by the petitioner for the amount for which the same has been raised along with the amount paid and 3 the total outstanding have been identified in a chart which is extracted hereinbelow; “SCHEDULE Sl. No. Zone Work order No. & Date Particulars of Bills Amount Rs. a) I 1942/XI-8 Dated 10.09.2018 1st RA Bill (Vide Page No.26 of MB No.888) Rs.1,88,377/- b) Do Do 2nd RA and Her/A and Final Bill (Vide Page 55, MB No.888) Rs.43,316/- c) II 1943/XI-8 Dated 10.09.2018 1st RA Bill (Vide Page No.8, MB No.MED/BKU/855) Rs.84,043/- d) Do Do 2nd RA Final Bill (Vide Page No. ILLEGIBLE, of M.B. No.MED/BKU/855) 94,533/- e) IV 1944/XI-8 Dated 10.09.2018 1st RA Bill ( Vide Page No.28, of M.B. No.897) 1,42,655/- f) Do Do 2nd RA and Final Bill (Vide Page No.74, of M.B. No.887) 1,22,434/- Total Rs.12,02,434/- Less Paid on 18.12.2024 Rs.94,533/- Total Dues Rs.05,80,825/-” 7. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner is at present entitled to refund of the security deposit, which is lying outstanding. Though, a representations had been made on 15th March, 2024, 6th December, 2024, 20th December, 2024, 1st July, 2025 and on 10th September, 2025, the respondents are yet to take a decision on the petitioner’s representation. 8. The municipality is represented and has placed before this Court an internal communication dated 17th September, 2026 duly countersigned by the Executive 4 Officer of the Bishnupur Municipality addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal. 9. As per the above communication, the work order for water supply scheme was issued on 10th September, 2018 and the work was completed in 9th January, 2020. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.5,80,825/- has not been refunded to the petitioner. 10. However, at this stage, the Board of Councillor has been dissolved and there is no Administrator. As such, the Executive Officer has sought for clarification from the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal. Copy of the aforesaid communication dated 17th September, 2026 as has been placed before this Court by Ms. Banerjee, is taken on record. 11. The State is represented. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader, representing the State, has no instruction in the matter. 12. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon going through the materials on record, I find that it is not in dispute that the petitioner has successfully executed the works. 13. It is also not in dispute that at present, a sum of Rs.5,80,825/- remains outstanding in respect of the refundable security deposit. According to the respondents, recommendation of such refund has already been made. The municipality is however, choosing to hold back the same by, inter alia, 5 contending that since the Board has been dissolved and at present, there is no Administrator, the Executive Officer is unable to take any decision. 14. I find that the dissolution has taken place very recently, and as such, the above defence cannot stand in the way of the respondents for the petitioner to be entitled to its legitimate dues. 15. Accordingly, I direct the Executive Officer of the Bishnupur Municipality to ensure that the admitted amount of the petitioner is disbursed, if necessary by obtaining proper sanction from the State authorities. 16. In this context, I find that a representation has already been made by the Executive Officer which is addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal. 17. In the peculiar facts and circumstances noted above, I direct the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal, UD & MA Department, MA Branch, to act on the basis of the aforesaid representation and take such steps as may be necessary for the purpose of disbursal of the admitted dues of the petitioner by the municipality. 18. Writ petition, thus, stands disposed of. 19. It is expected that the disbursal of the admitted amount shall be made in favour of the petitioner within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. 6 20. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)