Sri Ratan Paul vs The State of Tripura and 2 others.

Page 1 of 4

( 2026:THC:1336 )
TRHC010009602025

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA

WP(C) 459 of 2025

Sri Ratan Paul, S/O Monmohan Paul
R/O Jatanbari, Karbook, Gomati, Tripura.

……….Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Tripura
Notice to be served upon the Secretary, Power Department,
New Secretariat Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura Pin-799006.

2. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.
Notice to be served upon the Managing Director, Tripura State Electricity
Corporation Ltd., Bidyut Bhawan, North Banamalipur, Agartala, Pin-799001.

3. The Deputy General Manager, TSECL, RE-DDUGJY,
District- Dhalai, Tripura .

…………….Respondents

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sisis Chakraborty, Advocate
Mr. S. Das, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Bibhal Nandi Majumder, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Pradyumna Gautam, Sr. G.A.
Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
Mr. Kushal Deb, Advocate


Date of hearing & delivery
of Judgment & order : 24.09.2026

Whether fit for reporting: No _______

Page 2 of 4

HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)

[1] Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. K. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondents- Tripura State
Electricity Corporation Ltd ( TSECL for short ) and learned Sr. G.A. appearing
for the respondent-State.
[2] This present petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking following reliefs:
“…..In the premises aforesaid, the Petitioner humbly prays before
your lordships that your lordships may be graciously pleased to
consider the above facts and Issue Rule NISI calling upon the
Respondents and each one of them, to produce all relevant records
and to show cause:
i. As to why a writ of Certiorari and or a writ in the nature thereof,
should not be issued, for declaring that the deduction of an amount of
Rs.5,674,091 from the bill for the work under the PM- JANAMAN
Scheme on the plea of recovering the amount of compensation paid
to the workers in connection with another contract work viz. RE-
DDUGJY is illegal and the deducted amount is liable to be paid back
to the petitioner.
AND/OR
ii. As to why a writ of Mandamus should not be issued mandating/
directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 to repay to the petitioner an
amount of Rs.5,674,091, which was deducted from the bill for the
work under the PM-JANAMAN Scheme, on the plea of recovering
the amount of compensation paid to the workers in connection with
another contract work viz. RE-DDUGJY and to pay the said amount
to the petitioner within 15 days with interest @ 12% per annum.
AND/OR

Page 3 of 4

iii. As to why any other writ or direction should not be issued to
grant complete and adequate relief to the petitioner and after hearing
the parties your lordships may be pleased to make the rule
absolute.……................”
[3] It is seen from record that in the proceedings vide No.TS(EC) 01 of
2020 before the concerned authority i.e. the Commissioner, Employees’
Compensation, Dhalai Judicial District, Ambassa, the present petitioner is not a
party and no opportunity was given to him while an order has been passed on
29.04.2023 for payment of compensation. The respondent-TSECL Department
has paid compensation to the claimant(s) and recovered the same from the bill-
amounts of the contractor, the petitioner herein.
[4] It is undisputed fact that the petitioner herein was not made a party
and no opportunity was given to him to represent his case before the concerned
forum. In view of the same, there is a clear violation of the principles of natural
justice and the suit filed before the competent authority needs to be rejected on
the ground for non-joinder of necessary party. However, to re-examine the
matter after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the matter needs fresh
consideration. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, the order
dated 29.04.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation,
Dhalai Judicial District, Ambassa is set aside and the matter is remanded back
for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Both the parties ( the petitioner
and the respondents herein ) shall take steps for bringing the writ petitioner
herein on record and after filing necessary pleadings and documentary/oral

Page 4 of 4

evidence, the matter to be heard on merit and decided on merit as per law by the
concerned forum.
[5] With the above observations and directions, the instant petition is
hereby disposed of and the matter is remanded back to the concerned authority
for fresh adjudication. As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s), pending if
any, shall also stand closed.


DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD, J

















Sabyasachi G.
Digitally signed by SABYASACHI
GHOSH
Date: 2026.09.25 16:31:42 +05'30'
SABYASACHI GHOSH