Shri Pradip Kumar Basu vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

The matter pertains to a direction for disbursal of a sum of Rs. 20,71,763/- in favour of the petitioner in relation to execution of work order for supply of different type of Structures/ Pandel/ Banboo/Timber Railing/ Wooden Plank/ Wooden Shelves/Windows and Doors at strong room under Sadar Development Block, Jalpaiguri, in conection with 10^th Panchayat General Election, 2023.

The learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the first and the final bill prepared in the instant case and would submit that the said bill has been prepared and accepted under the signature of the Junior Engineer (BPC) Block Development Office, Sadar, Jalpaiguri who had also certified that work has been done satisfactorily and the bill may be passed for payment. According to the petitioner, although, the petitioner had made representation and sent legal notice for disbursal of the bill amount, the responders did not take any steps and as such the present writ petition has been filed.

When the writ petition came up for consideration on 2^nd September, 2026, this Court noting that the final bill appears to have been accepted under the signature of the Junior Engineer (BPC) Block Development Office, Sadar, Jalpaiguri was of the view that the report in this regard must be filed. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, on 8^th September, 2026, a report was filed wherein it was stated by the Block Development Office that the same was admitted to the extent that valid work order was issued and bill was submitted by the petitioner. It was further stated that the petitioner submitted that the consolidated final invoice for processing and disbursement which was disputed. The bill presented by the petitioner was disputed. Since the aforesaid report appear to have been mechanically prepared, and a dispute was purported to be raised without identifying any, this Court by order dated 8^th September, 2026 had directed the Block Development Officer, Sadar, Jalpaiguri to file a fresh report. The matter was since taken up on 10^th September, 2026 however, since no report was filed, the matter was adjourned recording that the time to file additional report was peremptorily extended till 11^th September, 2026.

Today, learned AAAG appearing for the respondents would submit that the report is pending at the end of the District Magistrate. According to him, since the bill is disputed, no direction for disbursal should be made. He still further submits that the claim is barred by delay.

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that it is an admitted position even from the report filed by the BDO, Sadar, Jalpaiguri that the work has been executed by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the bill was duly submitted before the authorities. The respondents were required to process the same. Though, the learned AAAG would submit that the claim is barred by limitation, I, however, find that in the instant case, the limitation would start from the date within which the bill is payable. Admittedly, in the instant case no communication has been made by the authorities that the claim has been rejected. Till this date, there is no confirmation from the end of the respondents that the petitioner’s bill has been rejected. The report does not deny the execution of the work or the recipt of the bill or the signature of the Junior Engineer and the certification of satisfactorily execution of work.

Accordingly, at this stage, I do not find that the bill has become barred by limitation. Be that as it may, the respondents cannot be permitted to unjustly enjoy the benefits of the work executed by the petitioner. Raising of a mere dispute does not entitle the authorities to deny the legitimate dues. In this regard, I direct the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri to take a decision on the petitioner’s claim especially having regard to the signature appearing on the bill of the Junior Engineer confirming that he work has been executed satisfactorily and the same may be processed.

I am of the view that the concerned District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri upon taking a reasoned decision in this regard shall ensure that the admitted dues of the petitioner are paid on an expeditious basis preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of taking such decision.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.