M/S A.G. Construction And ANR v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL) WPA/294/2025 M/s. A. G. Construction and Another ... Petitioners

Versus

The A & N Administration and Others ... Respondents For the Petitioners : Mrs. Anjali Nag, Sr. Adv.

Miss. K. Sneha Mr. Adarsh Ilango For the Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Heard on : 15.12.2025 Judgment on : 17.12.2025 SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1.

The writ application has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondent authorities to make the payment to the petitioners along with interest @ 12% per annum as per the bill of the petitioners and reflected in the bill addressed to the respondent authorities.

2.

On hearing the learned Counsels for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record it appears that in a report filed in the form of an affidavit dated 17.11.2025, the respondents herein have stated as follows :-

" iii. The Balance pending amount to be made to the petitioner (M/s A.G Construction, Govt Contractor, Katchal) for an amount of Rs 68,79,209/- as a final bill.

iv. For settlement of final bill payment, the upto date work done amount is exceeded the sanctioned limit. Hence, a revised estimate has been prepared and submitted to SE office vide this office letter No. 19/RR/DB/CD/KMT/2015-16/2054 on dated 21/01/2016 from EE/CD Kamorta for an amount of Rs. 4,54,42,025/- for the purpose of settlement of the final bill.

v. From the estimate submitted date 01/2016 to till date the revised estimate sanction is pending for various reasons and quarries asked by the officers of SE office/CE office. As on date the revised estimate resubmitted to SE office through e-file No. G-280957/2/2024-WS AE/Works) CE-APWD-APWD AN-Part(10) dated 29/10/2025 (E 106749) which is in process for getting revised sanction for settlement of final bill of M/s A.G Construction, Govt Contractor, Katchal (petitioner).

vi. Under the fresh claim made through WPA 294 of 2025, the petitioner (M/s A.G Construction, Govt Contractor, Katchal) is asked for 12% interest over the pending amount due to delaying in payment of final bill.

vii. As per GCC 2014 Clause 9-delay in payment of final bill after prescribed time limit of 06 months from date of completion, simple interest of 7.50% per annum and yearly compounded shall be paid to agency (M/s A.G Construction, Govt Contractor, Katchal).

viii. The interest amount over the balance payment of Rs. 68,79,209/-since 09/2016 to 09/2025 is calculated as an amount of Rs.

63,27,129/-which is not incorporated in the revised estimate.

ix The total due amount is Rs. 68,79,209+ Rs. 63,27,129 (interest upto 09/25) Rs.

1,32,06,338.00 expected to Rs. 1,32,06,338/- (Due bill payment interest amount) to be paid to petitioner (M/s A.

Construction, Govt Contractor, Katchal) after sanctioned of Revised.

x. The final bill settlement shall be settled only after the sanction of revised estimate from the Competent Authority.".

3.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to accept the payment as stated in the said report at the rate of 7.50 % per annum as agreed to by the respondent authority, subject to protecting her right for realizing the balance amount by approaching the appropriate authorities.

4.

The respondent authorities have filed a fresh report in the form of affidavit today wherein some fresh objections have been raised regarding sanction of revised cost estimate and furnishing of recommendation of standing committee for cost and time run and action, etc. etc.

5.

Learned Counsel for the respondents submit that as these formalities have not been complied with, the claim of the petitioners has not been addressed.

6.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that once the respondent have admitted their liability in their report on affidavit dated 17.11.2025, they cannot back track by filing a fresh report on different grounds/objections causing severe

prejudice to the petitioners. Moreso when the petitioners has agreed to accept the payment with interest @ 7.50 % per annum without prejudice to their rights.

7.

The following judgments are relied upon by the petitioners herein:- (i) The Supreme Court in M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors - versus - Chief General Manager & Ors reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1400, held :

"8. Be that as it may, the High Court has not dealt with the merits of the writ petition.

Moreover, it is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a writ petition may lie.(1) Further, throwing a writ petition on ground of availability of alternative remedy after 10 years, particularly, when parties have exchanged their affidavits, is not the correct course unless there are disputed questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence(2).".

(ii) The Calcutta High Court in Joyram Enterprise & Anr. - versus - The State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in WPA 5574 of 2023. D/d. 01.05.2023, held : "3. State of U.P v. Bridge & Roof Company (India) Ltd.; (1996) 6 SCC 22 held that the

Civil Court is the appropriate forum for a dispute in the realm of private law involving a non-statutory contract.

Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation v. Gayatri Construction Company; (2008) 8 SCC 172 came to a similar finding with regard to Interference in a contractual dispute. The agreement in that case however provided for in-house remedy for settlement of disputes. Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 728 summarized the principles in relation to interference by a Writ Court and held that the issue must have a public law character attached with it and money claims per se were not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances. Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh;

(2021) 6 SCC 771 reiterated the principles of exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy but held that an alternative remedy does not by itself divest the High Court of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. However, considering the Supreme Court decision in ABL. International Ltd. & Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.: (2004) 3 SCC 553, and the more recent decision of the Supreme Court in M.P. Power Management Company Limited, Jabalpur v.

Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited & Others, (2023) 2 SCC 703, which refers to all the decisions on the subject, this Court is of the view that there is no absolute bar on a writ court to entertain a petition involving a disputed question of facts or for relief arising out of contractual obligation including for payment of money. M.P. Power, which has exhaustively discussed the precedents, held in paragraph 82.6 that the State can indeed be called upon to honour its

obligations of making payment unless the State raises a serious and genuine dispute to the question of its liability to make payment.". 8.

On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record and the affidavits filed, the writ application stands disposed of with the direction that the respondent shall make/pay the outstanding amount as admitted in their report in the form of affidavit dated 17.11.2025 within three months from the date of this order. 9.

The said payment be made without prejudice to the further rights of the petitioner herein.

10.

The writ application stands disposed of.

11.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance of all formalities.

[ SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. ]