Authorities cannot withhold payment for satisfactorily executed work through an unspecified dispute.

The petitioner executed a work order for supplying and installing various structures and materials at a strong room under Sadar Development Block, Jalpaiguri, in connection with the 10th Panchayat General Election, 2023.

A final bill for Rs. 20,71,763/- was prepared and certified by the Junior Engineer (BPC), Block Development Office, Sadar, Jalpaiguri, who recorded that the work had been satisfactorily completed and recommended processing of the bill for payment.

Despite representations and a legal notice, the authorities did not release the amount, leading to the writ petition.

Pursuant to the Court’s direction, the Block Development Office admitted that a valid work order had been issued and that the petitioner had submitted the bill, but stated that the consolidated final invoice was disputed without identifying any specific defect or ground of dispute.

The Court directed a fresh report, but on the date of hearing the State submitted that the report was pending before the District Magistrate and that the claim was disputed and delayed.

Whether the petitioner’s claim for payment was barred by limitation or delay when the authorities had not communicated any rejection of the bill.

Whether the respondents could withhold payment merely by raising an unspecified dispute despite the admitted execution of the work, submission of the bill, and certification of satisfactory completion by the Junior Engineer.

Whether the District Magistrate should be directed to take a reasoned decision on the petitioner’s claim and ensure payment of any admitted dues.

A public authority cannot unjustly retain the benefit of work executed by a contractor without considering and processing the contractor’s legitimate payment claim.

A vague or unsupported assertion that a bill is “disputed” does not by itself justify withholding payment.

Limitation in respect of a payment claim ordinarily runs from the date on which the amount becomes payable, particularly where the authority has not communicated rejection of the claim.

The Court treated the execution of the work and submission of the bill as admitted, noting that the respondents’ report did not deny either the work, receipt of the bill, or the Junior Engineer’s signature certifying satisfactory completion.

Since no rejection of the bill had been communicated, the Court held that the claim could not, at that stage, be treated as barred by limitation.

The State’s reliance on a general and unidentified dispute was insufficient to justify withholding the petitioner’s dues, particularly because the authorities had obtained the benefit of the completed work.

In view of the Junior Engineer’s certification, the Court directed the District Magistrate to independently consider the claim and issue a reasoned decision.

The District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, was directed to take a reasoned decision on the petitioner’s claim, specifically considering the Junior Engineer’s certification of satisfactory execution and recommendation for processing the bill.

The District Magistrate was further directed to ensure payment of the petitioner’s admitted dues expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of the decision.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.