Admitted dues for completed municipal works cannot be withheld solely for want of prior approval and financial sanction.

The petitioners were contractors, proprietors, or cooperative societies engaged by Raiganj Municipality to execute various civil works, including roads and municipal infrastructure. They claimed that the works had been completed pursuant to work orders issued by the Municipality and that their bills remained unpaid.

The Municipal Engineering Directorate conducted a field-level enquiry into 269 schemes and submitted its report on 16 May 2019. The report recorded, in respect of the works covered by the present petitions, that the works had been completed and that the bills had been submitted to, or forwarded to, the Accounts Section.

The Municipality subsequently confirmed execution of the works in a report filed pursuant to the Court’s direction dated 11 February 2026.

In earlier proceedings concerning similarly situated contractors, the Principal Secretary held that the works had been undertaken without prior Administrative Approval and Financial Sanction (“AA&FS”) under the State Government procedure and that the State could not assume liability on that basis. However, the Coordinate Bench in WPA 3255 of 2024 directed payment of the verified amount, relying on the principles of unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, public trust, and the State’s welfare obligations.

Whether the absence of prior Administrative Approval and Financial Sanction under Section 73A of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 disentitled the petitioners from payment for works completed pursuant to municipal work orders?

Whether the State Government and Raiganj Municipality could be directed to disburse the admitted or verified dues despite the Municipality’s contention that it had power to raise funds or obtain loans under the Act?

Whether the writ court could grant monetary relief where the respondents disputed the procedural validity of the work orders and the absence of AA&FS?

The Court applied Sections 71A, 72, 73A, 75 and 429 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, including the statutory framework concerning State financial assistance, municipal finances, prior approval, and municipal powers and liabilities.

It relied on the principles of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit under Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872, under which a person or authority benefiting from a lawful, non-gratuitous act must compensate the person who performed it.

The Court followed the Division Bench decision in Raiganj Municipality & Ors. v. Nandalal Saha & Ors., MAT 896 of 2025, which held that the State could not retain the benefit of completed public works without payment where the works had been verified and were being used by citizens.

It also referred to Mahabir Kishore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1989) 4 SCC 1, on restitution and the principle that no person should be unjustly enriched at another’s expense, and considered the authorities cited by the State, including Madhoor Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. v. Yeola Municipal Council, (2019) 9 SCC 350, and I Sustain Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, FMA 385 of 2023.

The Court found that the State-sponsored enquiry had identified the works covered by the petitions and recorded their completion, while the Municipality itself had subsequently confirmed execution of the works.

Although the respondents relied on the absence of AA&FS and contended that the Municipality could independently generate funds or borrow money, the Court held that this objection had already been considered and rejected in the Nandalal Saha proceedings.

In that case, the Division Bench had held that the works were public works carried out for the benefit of municipal residents, that State authorities had verified their completion, and that the State could not rely on procedural irregularities to avoid payment while retaining the benefit of the works.

The Court further held that the present petitioners stood on the same footing: their works were recorded in the same enquiry report, had not been challenged on grounds of quality or non-execution, and were being enjoyed by the public.

Consequently, withholding the admitted dues would result in unjust enrichment, and the writ court could issue directions for payment in the peculiar and substantially undisputed factual circumstances.

Payment was directed to be made within two months from communication of the order.

The authorities were permitted to reassess the quantum in accordance with law, but no legitimate dues were to be withheld.

The Court did not finally determine the manner in which the State and Municipality would adjust or apportion the financial burden between themselves.