M/S.Manjula Construction Cooperative Society Ltd v. The Panchayat Samiti

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/1090/2023 M/s Manjula Construction Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs The Panchayat Samiti With WPA/1091/2023 M/s Manjula Construction Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs The Panchayat Samiti and Ors.

with WPA/1092/2023 M/s Manjula Construction Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs The Panchayat Samiti and Ors.

With WPA/1093/2023 M/s Manjula Construction Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs The Panchayat Samiti and Ors.

WPA/1094/2023 M/s Manjula Construction Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs The Panchayat Samiti and Ors.

With WPA/1095/2023 M/s Manjula Construction Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs The Panchayat Samiti and Ors.

Mr.Tapan Kumar Das ... for the petitioners Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents August 02, 2024

[SR] Item Nos.27,28,29, 30,31,32 All these writ petitions involve the same questions of fact and law. Therefore these writ petitions have been taken together for hearing.

The petitioner is a society which has been formed by unemployed persons. The society carries on business of civil construction.

Several work orders for construction of C.C.Drains in different phases in Neil Island were issued in favour of the petitioner society. The petitioner says that it completed the entire work to the satisfaction of the Panchayat in question. The bills of the society have been paid excepting 10% towards Security Deposit and 10% towards test check by the Executive Engineer. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the aforesaid writ petitions.

Learned advocate for the respondents says that withholding of 20% of the bill amount is due to the fact that the test check has not yet been carried out and completion certificate in terms of the CPWD Manual has not been issued by the Executive Engineer.

Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the respondents says that these writ petitions should not be entertained since disputed questions of fact are involved.

Learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn my attention to an internal note generated by the office of the Executive Engineer, which reads as follows:- "OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYAT RAJ INSTITUTION SOUTH ANDAMAN DIVISION PORT BLAIR SOUTH ANDAMAN eeprisa@gmail.com NOTE With reference to the report submitted by Assistant Engineer (PRI), Sub Division Prothrapur after filed inspection along Junior Engineer (PRI), Neil Kendra, Gram Panchayat it is found that all the

work orders from h-I to Ph-VI) executed by the then Junior Engineer, Zilla Parishad and Assistant Engineer, Zilla Parishad, PBSD and it seems that contractor has completed the work satisfactorily and the contractor is still awaiting for his final bill and security deposit amount which is kept pending due to non-entry of completion certificate and in absence of test check by Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad. In view of the above two reasons this office is not in a position to settle the long pending dues claimed by the contractor.

Necessary approval may kindly be accorded since the completed work is found in good condition and fully functional despite a lapse of more than twelve years. Moreover 20% of the gross amount of work done withheld viz - 10% SD and 10% work done amount on account of non-test check Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad. Now, to avoid any dispute over this long pending claim of the contractor, if approved we may release 10% SD amount. Sd/- EE(PRI) File No.2-17/EE/PRI/SAD-I/PB/2023-24/1582 dt.21/10/23 SE(PRI)"

It appears from the aforesaid note that the work was satisfactorily completed by the petitioner. Learned advocate for the respondents could not point out any complaint from any quarter regarding the quality of work done by the petitioner. I also do not find any disputed question of fact in the present case. The internal note of the office of the Executive Engineer addressed to the Chief Engineer leaves no scope for any dispute.

I am conscious that normally the writ court would not pass an order which would amount to a money decree. However, if there is no dispute regarding the claim of the contract, then the writ court would be justified in intervening. In the present case I do not find any legitimate reason for the respondent authorities to withhold the claim of the petitioner society. It is not the responsibility of the petitioner to conduct test check nor can the petitioner society issue completion certificate.

The petitioner society should not be made to suffer for inaction or indolence on the part of the Executive Engineer. Accordingly, I direct the concerned Executive Engineer, being the respondent no.3 herein, to undertake the test check immediately and in any event within four weeks from date and then to issue the completion certificate. If everything is found to be in order, such completion certificate will be issued within two weeks after test check is conducted. The amount due to the petitioner society will be disbursed by the respondent authorities within four weeks from the issuance of the completion certificate by the concerned Executive Engineer. In the event the Executive Engineer refuses to issue completion certificate, he shall communicate the reason therefor to the petitioner society in writing. These writ petitions being WPA/1090/2023, WPA/1091/2023, WPA/1092/2023, WPA/1093/2023, WPA/1094/2023 and WPA/1095/2023 are disposed of accordingly.

(Arijit Banerjee J.)