Keshab Mukherjee v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

were produced during hearing by Sri Keshab Mukherjee as well as no official record were found to corroborate those. (7) The Agency failed to submit any photographs or videos or list of witnesses in support of his work done which are mandatory for office records. Audit etc.”

#7. Considering the report submitted by the authority, this Court finds that there is a dispute with regard to issuance of work order and completion of work by the petitioner and as such the learned counsel for the State submits that it is not possible for the respondents to release any amount as the petitioner failed to prove his case that any work order was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has completed the work. He further submits that this is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in the present application.

#8. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of ABL International Ltd. & Anr. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation reported in AIR Online 2003 SC 700 and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that in an appropriate case, a writ petition as against the State or an instrumentality of the State arising out of the contractual obligation is maintainable. He further submits that in the present 6 case the authorities have issued the work order, the petitioner has completed the work order subsequently, the authorities have issued the completion certificate and as such the writ petition is maintainable.

#9. The petitioner is also relied upon the unreported judgment in the case of Raiganj Municipality and Ors. vs. Nandalal Saha and Ors. passed in MAT 896 of 2025 dated July 14, 2025 and submits that in the said case also the Division Bench of this Court has came to a conclusion that the Raiganj Municipality is liable to pay the amount to the petitioner and appellate the order passed by the learned Single Bench.

#10. Considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective perused the materials on record, report submitted by the authority and the judgment relied by the petitioner.

#11. This Court finds that the petitioner has relied upon the written work orders, completion certificate and the bill submitted by the petitioner. In terms of the order passed by this Court dated January 8, 2025, the respondents held meeting along with the petitioner. During the meeting the documents which the petitioner has relied upon are not available in the office of the respondents. It was also found that the document which the petitioner has relied upon has not been issued from the office of the respondent authorities. In the report, is also mentioned there are so many mismatched information and figures. The Sub-Assistant Engineer 7 who was posted during the period of 2014-2018 stated that no such claim was filed by the petitioner.

#12. In the present case, this Court finds that the work orders and the completion certificate which the petitioner has relied upon are of 2015 and 2016. In the year 2018 itself it was informed to the petitioner to produce supporting documents/work orders of the work done by the petitioner but thereafter no steps was taken by the petitioner.

#13. Now only in the year, 2020 the petitioner has filed the writ petition claiming the demand of 2014-2018. Thus the claim made in the writ petition itself barred by limitation.

#14. Considering the above, this Court finds that there is a disputed question of fact as the documents which the petitioner has relied upon that has been denied by the authorities. In a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court cannot decide the disputed question of fact. The judgment relied by the petitioner is distinguishable facts and circumstances of the present case.

#15. WPA 8182 of 2020 is dismissed.

#16. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

#17. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)