Contractual maintenance periods commence from actual completion, and admissible dues are payable for maintenance performed.

The petitioner was engaged under Agreement No. 38/MBD/2015-16 to construct and maintain two roads for five years.

The construction work was recorded in the Measurement Book, and the respondents admitted that it was completed and that ₹6,83,45,113 had been paid towards construction costs.

The parties disputed the maintenance work and related payments: the respondents said the petitioner had maintained the roads for only three years, while the petitioner claimed payment of outstanding contractual dues, including maintenance charges, GST and security deposit.

The petitioner also challenged the recorded completion date for part of the work.

The writ petition sought payment and related reliefs.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to payment of admissible maintenance dues for the disputed 150-metre portion, and how the completion date affected calculation of the maintenance period.

2. Whether the Court should direct payment of the petitioner’s other claimed contractual dues, including GST, interest and security deposit.

The Court applied the terms of the parties’ agreement, the applicable rules, and the departmental records—including the Measurement Book—to determine the admissible maintenance dues and the relevant completion date.

The judgment cites no statute, regulation, or precedent, and states no broader legal doctrine governing contractual claims.

The Court found that the construction had been completed and recorded, and that the remaining dispute concerned a 150-metre portion and the consequent maintenance period.

Because that portion was also completed, the Court directed the respondents to determine the admissible maintenance dues by verifying the Measurement Book and other departmental records. It further held that the actual completion date must be used to calculate the five-year maintenance period.

The Court did not separately adjudicate the claims for GST, interest, security deposit, or other reliefs.

Payment was to be made within three months of receipt or production of the order.

The judgment did not grant the claimed GST, interest, security-deposit or litigation-cost reliefs.