Introduction:
In the case of Amjad Hossain vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (WPA 1746 of 2025, decided on 03/09/2025), the Calcutta High Court bench presided over by Justice Aniruddha Roy considered a writ petition involving the failure of a municipality, falling under the definition of “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution, to release payments for work duly completed under a government-sanctioned work order. The petitioner, Amjad Hossain, had been awarded a work order for certain construction-related works which were completed to the satisfaction of the concerned authority. Completion certificates were duly issued, and the municipality had no objections to the quality or execution of the work. Despite this, only partial payment was made in 2018, leaving an outstanding balance of ₹22,90,039/-. The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking enforcement of his right to receive the admitted dues. The Court ruled in his favor, holding that once a work order is completed and certified, the authority is legally and constitutionally bound to release full payment, and non-payment without due process amounts to a violation of fundamental rights.
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, Amjad Hossain, argued that he had been awarded a valid work order by the concerned municipality, which falls within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, bound by constitutional mandates. He submitted that the work was carried out in accordance with the specifications and was duly certified by completion certificates, clearly establishing that the work was done satisfactorily. He pointed out that after the work was completed, the municipality made a part payment in 2018. This partial payment, he argued, constituted a clear acknowledgment of liability and debt on the part of the respondents. Despite repeated representations and reminders, the outstanding balance of ₹22,90,039/- remained unpaid.
The petitioner contended that the withholding of such admitted dues by an Article 12 authority without any legal justification not only breaches contractual obligations but also violates constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. By refusing to release the legitimate dues, the respondents had effectively deprived him of his right to livelihood, fairness, and equality before law. The petitioner argued that financial incapacity or lack of sanctioned funds could not be an excuse for failing to discharge admitted obligations, especially when the work had been completed and accepted. He sought relief under Article 227, requesting the High Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to compel the respondents to release the outstanding balance.
Arguments of the Respondents:
On the other hand, the State of West Bengal and the concerned municipality submitted that while it was true that the work had been completed and part payment had been made, the remaining payment could not be released due to financial constraints. It was argued that funds are not sanctioned project-wise but are released in bulk against each municipality. Therefore, unless further Government approval or sanction is received, the municipality is not in a position to disburse the balance amount. The respondents argued that the delay in releasing funds was not a deliberate or mala fide act but arose from structural financial processes and limitations imposed by the State Government’s funding patterns.
The State further contended that although the part payment was indeed made, the mere fact of such payment could not be taken as an enforceable acknowledgment that the balance must be paid immediately, especially when there were budgetary limitations. The respondents suggested that the petitioner’s claim was more in the nature of a contractual dispute for recovery of money and hence not strictly enforceable through writ jurisdiction. They asserted that unless specific funds were made available to the municipality for this purpose, the delay in making the payment could not be treated as a violation of constitutional rights.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Aniruddha Roy, after hearing both sides, made significant observations regarding the obligations of Article 12 authorities and the enforceability of admitted dues. The Court noted that the facts were undisputed: the work order had been issued, the work was completed to the satisfaction of the authority, completion certificates were issued, and part payment was made in 2018. The issuance of completion certificates left no room for doubt that the work had been satisfactorily carried out. Further, the part payment made by the respondents constituted a categorical acknowledgment of debt and liability.
The Court observed that when an authority falling under Article 12 of the Constitution fails to discharge its financial obligations after accepting work, such failure cannot be excused on the ground of financial limitations or delays in sanction of funds. The plea that funds were not sanctioned project-wise but released in bulk could not justify withholding admitted dues, particularly when the petitioner had already performed his part of the contract. The Court emphasized that once an admitted debt exists, withholding payment without due process of law amounts to a violation of constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21.
Justice Roy relied on the principle that public authorities must act fairly and reasonably, and financial incapacity cannot be used as a defense to deny legitimate dues. The Court held that when an admitted debt is due to the petitioner, withholding it without due process amounts to an arbitrary act that violates constitutional protections. The Court clarified that it was not necessary for the petitioner to file a civil suit for recovery when the admitted dues were wrongly withheld by an Article 12 authority. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 227, is empowered to compel such an authority to release the amount in order to prevent a breach of the petitioner’s rights.
The Court, therefore, directed the respondents to release the outstanding balance of ₹22,90,039/- to the petitioner within a reasonable period, observing that justice and fairness demanded no less. The petition was accordingly disposed of with directions.
This judgment is significant because it reaffirms that contractual obligations, when accepted and acknowledged by public authorities, are enforceable not merely as private law claims but as constitutional obligations, especially when delay or denial causes arbitrary deprivation of rights. It emphasizes the responsibility of Article 12 authorities to act with fairness, transparency, and accountability in their dealings with citizens, particularly contractors and service providers who have already fulfilled their obligations.