N.Yusuf v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ...

WPA/33/2020 N. Yusuf ... Petitioner Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others ... Respondents Mr. K Vijay Kumar, Advocate ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Advocate ... for the respondents December 8, 2021 [GNC] Item No. 46 The writ petitioner seeks a direction upon the authorities to release the unpaid bills.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was asked to do extra work. He draws the attention of the Court to the letter dated October 23, 2018 where the authorities claimed that they did not have the financial power to sanction of the extra work. He draws the attention of the Court to the letter dated August 7, 2018 as also to the representations made by the petitioner on July 18, 2019 and July 19, 2019. He submits that the representations made by the petitioner be decided by the authorities.

Learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation. He draws the attention of the Court to the contents of the letter dated July 19, 2019 of the writ petitioner which states that the writ petitioner completed the work three years prior to such letter.

Therefore, according to him the claim of the petitioner is hopefully barred by limitation.

In the facts of the present case the petitioner was engaged as a contractor to execute certain civil works. There was an issue with regard to the extra work. The authorities at a certain level claimed that they do not possess requisite power to sanction the revised estimate as appearing from the letter dated October 23, 2018. There is a letter dated August 7, 2018 of the authorities stating that some extra work was involved during the execution of the work and that the final bill amount could not be completed as necessary grant of extension of time is necessary and also the estimate needs to be revised and for accord of revised sanction. The fact that the writ petitioner executed the work is not disputed. However, the actual quantum receivable by the petitioner is in dispute. There is a point of limitation involved also.

Limitation being a mixed question of law and fact it would be inappropriate to decide the same in a writ petition without allowing the parties an opportunity to adduce evidence. Moreover disputed question of facts are involved in the present case. In such circumstances, I am not in a position to grant any relief to the writ petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

However, this order will not prevent the writ petitioner from availing of his remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

In such circumstances, WPA/33/2020 stands disposed of. (Debangsu Basak, J. )