[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
The Chief Executive Officer vs Sri Malayendra Ghosh Roy on 17 February, 2026
Author: T.Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 8
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
RFA No. 02 of 2024
The Chief Executive Officer, Kailashahar Municipal Council, PO & PS-
Kailashahar, Sub-Division- Kailashahar, Unakoti Tripura.
.......Appellant
Versus
1. Sri Malayendra Ghosh Roy, S/o- Lt. Makhan Lal Ghosh Roy of South
Kacharghat, P.O & P.S- Kailashahar, New Nabojagriti Club adjacent to
Saw Mill. Sub-Division- Kailashahar, Unakoti Tripura. ( Partners M/S MEC
Engineering Consultancy Firm and lawful Attorney of the Partners) Pin-
799277.
2. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary, Urban Development
Department, Town and Country Planning Organization, Government of
Tripura, Agartala, West Tripura.
........Respondent(S)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Debalaya Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Samar Das, Advocate.
Mr. S. Saha, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Mr. K. Nath, Advocate.
Ms. S. Debbarman, Advocate.
Mr. D. Paul, Advocate.
Date of hearing & delivery
of Judgment & Order : 17.02.2026
Whether fit for reporting : YES
BEFORE
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
(Dr.T.Amarnath Goud, J)
[1] Heard Mr. Debalaya Bhattacharya, learned Senior counsel
assisted by Mr. Samar Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant i.e.,
Chief Executive Officer, Kailashahar Municipal Council. Also heard Mr. P.
Roy Barman, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.(Plaintiff in Suit).
[2] Facts leading to the present appeal are that, on 09.01.2014
„Nagar Panchayat‟ Kailashahar issued one work order in favour of the
respondent No.1, vide No.F.4(8)/RAY/NP/KLS/2013/25, for preparation of
detailed project report for providing housing to eligible beneficiaries under
Rajib Abash Yojana. After receiving the work order, respondent No.1 started
work and completed the work as per specification of the work order within
stipulated period. Thereafter, as per requirement of the authority concerned,
partial modification was done. That, after completion of the work and
submission of DPR, respondent No.1 submitted bill amounting to Rs.
29,59,000/-. Out of that amount, appellant paid Rs. 10,00,000/-. After that
respondent No.1 filed one Money Suit being No. 03 of 2017. The appellant
herein contested the suit by filing written statement wherein the appellant
stated that the suit is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder and non-joinder of
the parties. After hearing both parties, the learned Court below on 26.04.2022
delivered a judgment, the relevant portion is as under:-
"O R D E R
30. Accordingly it is ordered that the Chief Executive Officer, KLS. Municipal
Council, shall pay the plaintiff the pending amount of Rs. 19,59,000/- for the work
of preparation of detailed project report by the 25 of next month and for any delay
an interest @ 6% percent per annum shall be given to the petitioner by the
respondent, Chief Executive Officer, in addition to the pending amount of
Rs.19,59,000/-
31. With this observations and direction the case stands decreed.
32. Prepare the decree accordingly.
33. Place it before the undersigned for signature.
34. Make necessary entry in the relevant TR.
35. The judgement is given under my hand and seal of this Court on this the 26 day
of April, 2022."
[3] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 26.04.2022
passed in the MS 03 of 2017, the defendant No.1 ( appellant herein) filed this
present appeal seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) Admit this appeal; Issue notice.
ii) Call for the record;
and
iii. After hearing the parties be pleased to set aside/ quash the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2022
passed in MS 03 of 2017."
[4] Learned Senior counsel Mr. Debalaya Bhattacharya, submits
before this Court that the project was financed by HUDCO but the respondent
No.1 intentionally did not make party who is the actual party liable to pay
the respondent No.1, but the present appellant is only to execute the work on
behalf of the HUDCO. He further submits before this Court that the learned
Trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondent No.1 is a partnership firm
who has not filed the suit and no authorization of parties have been assigned
in the pleadings or in the evidence and as such, the claim against the appellant
is not maintainable and the decree is liable to be set aside.
[5] Learned Senior counsel contends before this Court that there was
no evidence to the Trial Court that M/S MEC is a partnership firm. He also
stated that the respondent No.1 has not mentioned that Rajib Awas Yojana is a
project of HUDCO and without approval of the HUDCO, this work is not
possible on the part of the appellant concerned. Due to non approval by the
HUDCO, the project was not materialized and he pleaded that there is no any
fault on the part of Kailashahar Municipal Council. He, therefore, prays
before this Court to grant the relief as prayed in the instant appeal.
[6] On the other hand, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel
submits before this Court that interms of the work order which is issued by
the authority concerned, the respondent No.1 herein completed the works.
Thereafter, the respondent no.1 submitted the bills but the authority concerned
provided only a part of the bill and the rest payment remained unpaid. As a
result of that respondent No.1 filed a money suit before the learned Court
below.
[7] He further submits that the appellant admitted in their affidavit
that the rest amount would be paid to the respondent No.1 after approval and
sanction fund of the central project but after filing of the instant case no
payment of the rest amount has been made yet. He also contends before this
Court that the respondent No.1 submitted several representation, but all his
efforts remained pending with the party concerned. Referring the issue,
learned counsel pleaded before this Court to dismiss the prayer of the
appellant and also to affirm the judgment of the learned Court below.
[8] Heard and perused the evidence on record.
[9] It is seen from the record that the appellant herein issued a work
order for providing housing to eligible beneficiaries under Rajib Awas
Yojana(RAY) in Kailashahar Nagar Panchayat. As per the work order,
respondent No.1submitted the Detailed Project Report (DPR) and also making
partial modification in the project as per requirement of the authority
concerned. For better appreciation of the matter, the work order is quoted as
under :-
" OFFICE OF THE NAGAR PANCHAYAT
KAILASHAHAR: UNAKOTI TRIPURA
No.F.4(8)/RAY/NP/KLS/2013/25 Dated, Kailashahar The January 09th, 2014
WORK ORDER
SL No. Name of Work/ Description of work etc.. RateTimeof
Completion
1 Preparation of Detailed Project Report (DPR) for providing 1(one)% 14/01/2014
housing to eligible beneficiaries under Rajib Awas Yojana
(RAY) in Kailashahar Nagar Panchayat. DPR shall include Project
design & maps for provision of drainage, water & electricity
cost
supply sanitation etc.
Terms & Condition:-
i) Work shall be carried out as per Revised Guideline of RAY.
ii) Work should be completed within stipulated period from the date of issue of this work order
iii)No extra payment shall be made beyond the approved rate of the project cost..
iv)No advance payment shall be made before completion of the work.
v) The Agency should submit 7(seven) copies including soft copy of final DPR to the office of the
undersigned after completion of their works in all respect by 14th January 14 positively.
vi) All payment shall be tax inclusive, which shall be deducted before making payment.
To
M/S MEC
C/O:-Er. Molayendra Ghosh Roy
South Kacharghat
Kailashahar
Unakoti Tripura sd
Executive Officer
Nagar Panchayat Kailashahar Unakoti District
Copy forwarded to kind information:
1. Chairperson, Kailashahar Nagar Panchayat
2. Vice-Chairperson, Kailashahar Nagar Panchayat".
[10] Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the contract between
the Kailashahar Municipal Council and M/S. MEC is very much valid and
was accepted by both the parties. It also appears that, part payment was also
made.
[11] This Court is of the opinion that if the appellant of this case,
Kailashahar Municipal Council pulls up its hands from making the rest
payment by saying that the same has not been approved by HUDCO or the
Finance Department then it is not the fault of the respondent No.1 and it
cannot be said that the appeal is bad for non-joinder.
[12] This Court is also of the view that before issuing a work order, it
is the duty of the appellant to check and verify whether he has the authority to
enter into such contract. When he enters into the contract and also make part
payment, it becomes his liability to do the rest part of his contract and to pay
the rest amount to the party concerned. In the case in hand, it is the
Kailashahar Municipal Council which is under a legal liability for making
payment of Rs.19,59,000/- along with interest.
[13] It is not open for the appellant to raise new issues for
consideration at the stage of appeal as the appellant has not argued on this
issues and no such issues were framed by the Trial Court. Further when there
is no agreement entered amongst the parties it is not right on the part of the
appellant to argue on the point of agreement and non joinder of proper parties.
[14] The appellant has entered into second correspondence with the
plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) and further assigned the work which took
reasonable period to get the work executed as agreed and part payment has
been made as agreed and now, when the matter comes for making balance
payment, it is not open for the appellant to deny a legitimate right of the
respondent No1. This Court strongly believes that laws are made for citizen
but citizens are not made for law. On mere grounds of technical reasons to
deny the ultimate justice to the respondent No.1 cannot be appreciated. On
one hand, the appellant having getting the work done by the respondent and
after making part payment, now depriving for the balance leads to dual
standards of the appellant. The action of the appellant attracts maxim
"Quad approbo non reprobo" and legal doctrine " approbate and reprobate".
[15] Since, the entire correspondence between both the parties was
made by M/S MEC Engineering and works have been assigned and it is also
observed that in a letter addressed by the appellant to the respondent No.1, it
clearly indicates that they have been falling under insufficient funds as stated
in the written statement of the defendant (appellant herein) or some amounts
are yet to be received from HUDCO. According to this Court, this
inconvenience caused to the appellant cannot be fastened upon respondent
no.1 by denying legitimate right of the respondent on one pretext or the
other. Moreover, the appellant has not approached this Court with clean
hands . An instrumentality of the state is expected to act with the citizens in all
fairness and at the present, the act of the appellant cannot be appreciated for
the discussion made above .
[16] In view of the above and also on perusal of the judgment, this
Court finds that there is no infirmities to interfere with the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the Trial
Court is upheld and the present appeal filed by the defendant no.1 in the suit
(appellant herein)stands dismissed.
[17] Accordingly, this Court feels that the respondent No.1 (plaintiff
in the suit) is entitled to get a decree. Thereafter, taking into consideration all
these circumstances cumulatively, we find that the decree passed by the
learned Trial Court is just and proper and needs no interference. Hence, we
find no reason to disturb with the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2022
passed by the learned Court below. Accordingly, the same is confirmed and
the instant appeal stands dismissed.
[18] As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall
stand closed.
S.DATTA PURKAYASTHA,J DR.T. AMARNATH GOUD,J
Paritosh
SABYA
SACHI Digitally signed
by SABYASACHI
GHOSH
GHOS Date: 2026.03.03
15:15:04 +05'30'
H
