M/S. B. Enterprise & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1009 Cal

07.02.2023
Item no.1
Court No.6.
  AB
                              F.M.A. 1174 of 2021
                                      With
                               I A CAN 1 of 2021
                               I A CAN 2 of 2021

                           M/s. B. Enterprise & Anr.
                                      Vs
                       The State of West Bengal & Others

                    Mr. Sandip Ghosh,
                    Mr. Partha Sarkar        ....for the Appellants.

                    Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy,
                    Mr. Indranath Mitra,
                    Mr. Subhankar Das.....for the Respondent No.8.

Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, Mr. P. B. Mahato ....for the State.

By consent of the parties, the appeal and the

applications are taken up for hearing together.

In re : IA CAN 2 of 2021

This is an application for condonation of delay of

64 days in filing the appeal. Causes shown being

sufficient, the delay is condoned.

I A CAN 2 of 2021 is, accordingly, disposed of.

In re : FMA 1174 of 2021, IA CAN 1 of 2021

This appeal is directed against a judgment and

order dated April 13, 2021, whereby the appellants'

writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single

Judge.

The writ petitioners approached the learned

Single Judge with the grievance that their bill for

having done work for the concerned Panchayet, has

not been paid. It was submitted that against the bill

amount of Rs.4,61,836/-, the Panchayet, by a

Resolution dated December 28, 2018, offered to pay to

the writ petitioners a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- only,

although there is no contemporaneous complaint

regarding the quality of the work done by the writ

petitioners. Learned Advocate for the Panchayet,

however, says that the total bill amount was

Rs.3,95,112/-. This is disputed by learned Counsel

appearing for the appellants.

Before the learned Judge, it was submitted on

behalf of the Panchayet that the quality of the work

executed by the writ petitioners is substandard. The

material used is not upto the mark. The writ

petitioners did not complete the entire work.

The learned Judge recorded that the claim of the

writ petitioners beyond the sum of Rs.2,30,000/- was

highly disputed by the Panchayet. Accordingly, the

learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by

granting liberty to the writ petitioners to accept the

sum of Rs.2,30,000/- without prejudice to their rights

and contentions. It was left open for the writ

petitioners to take recourse to the appropriate forum

as regards their claim for the balance amount of the

bill.

Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners have come

up by way of the present appeal.

Since the learned Single Judge disposed of the

writ petition without calling for affidavits, the stand of

the Panchayet was not on record. Accordingly, we had

directed exchange of affidavits. Affidavits have been

filed.

In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Panchayet,

the same statements have been made as were made

before the learned Single Judge. Documents have been

annexed including reports of engineers to the effect

that there are defects in the work executed by the

appellants. In a nutshell, the claim of the appellants

beyond a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- has been strongly

disputed by the Panchayet.

The Writ Court is not the appropriate forum for

deciding such disputed claims. In our view, the

learned Single Judge rightly did not enter into the

disputed questions and disposed of the writ petition by

granting liberty to the writ petitioners to accept the

sum of Rs.2,30,000/- without prejudice to their rights

and contentions. We see no infirmity in the order

under appeal, which would call for our interference.

The appellants will be at liberty to accept the

sum of Rs.2,30,000/- without prejudice to their rights

and contentions. Such sum shall be paid by the

Panchayet to the appellants within two weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order by the Pradhan of

the concerned Panchayet. Needless to say, receipt of

such sum will be without prejudice to the appellants'

right to approach the appropriate forum for recovery of

their balance claim.

Since we have not called for affidavits, the

allegations in the application are deemed not to be

admitted by the respondents.

F.M.A. No.1174 of 2021 is, accordingly, disposed

of along with IA CAN 1 of 2021.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied expeditiously after compliance

with all the necessary formalities.

(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)