Sri Utpal Datta vs The State Of Tripura & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 187 Tri

                                Page 1 of 3




                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          AGARTALA

                          WP(C) No.113/2023

Sri Utpal Datta
                                                       .........Petitioner(s).
                                VERSUS
The State of Tripura & others
                                                     .........Respondent(s).

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, G.A., Mr. K. De, Addl. G.A.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

Order

28/02/2023

Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner. Also heard Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned Government

Advocate assisted by Mr. K. De, learned Addl. Government Advocate

appearing for the respondents-State.

2. This instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to release

the interest on the delayed payment of security deposit.

3. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

"(i) It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordships would graciously be pleased to issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the Respondents should not transmit all records relating to the case of the Petitioner.

AND

(ii) As to why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued directing the State Respondents to implement the Judgment & Order (Oral) dated 23.03.2022 passed in WP(C) 758 of 2021, to release Rs.1,80,348/- as interest of 7% per annum against the one-fourth of total security deposit i.e. Rs.3,22,051/- for the period from 11.05.2014 to 31.05.2022 and Rs.4,73,415/- as interest of 7% per annum against the three-fourth of total security deposit i.e. Rs.9,66,155/- for the period from 11.05.2015 to 31.05.2022 in favour of the petitioner.

AND

(iii) As to why such other order/orders should not be passed so as to give full relief to the Petitioner and, upon causes shown, to make the Rule absolute."

4. Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, contends that though the petitioner completed his work in

2012 but in compliance of the judgment and order dated 23.03.2022

passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.758 of 2021 the

respondents released the final bill amount to the petitioner after about 8

years. Accordingly, he prays for directing the respondents to release 7%

interest on the delayed payment of security deposit.

On the other hand, Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned

Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents, in rebuttal,

contends that the petitioner has an alternative remedy available under

law and as such, this second round of litigation is not maintainable.

5. In view of submissions of learned counsel of both sides, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is not

maintainable since there is an alternative remedy available under law.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed being not

maintainable, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail remedy in

accordance with law.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

Pulak