Disposed¶16

Bapi Das v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC9 Feb 2026WPA/20470/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bapi Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., WPA 20470 of 2025, decided 09.02.2026 by Krishna Rao, J.: release of admitted payment of Rs. 7,49,258/- (against claimed Rs. 7,92,900/-) for work completed under work order dated 21.09.2020 of BDO, Mathurapur-II, South 24 Parganas; limitation objection raised but left undecided; directions to sanction (respondent no. 2, six weeks) and release (respondent no. 3, two weeks); writ disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 2 to sanction Rs. 7,49,258/- within six weeks from receipt of the order, and to respondent no. 3 to release the sanctioned amount in favour of the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. ¶16

Bapi Das Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

S/L 22 09.02.2026 Court. No. 25 Sourav

¶2

WPA 20470 of 2025

¶3

Bapi Das Vs.

¶4

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Pankaj Halder Mr. Tapas Manna Mr. Neelabha Bera

¶6

… for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Sarvesh Chandra Shrivastav Mr. Gaurav Banerji

¶8

… for the State.

¶9

The petitioner has filed the present writ application praying for a direction upon the respondents for release of the amount of Rs. 7,92,900/-.

¶10

The case of the petitioner is that on September 21, 2020, the Block Development Officer, Mathurapur-II, Development Block, South 24 Parganas had issued the work order and in terms of the work order issued by the authorities to the petitioner, the has completed the work with the satisfaction of the respondent authorities. Even after completion of the work, the authorities have not released the amount and, accordingly, the petitioner has made several representations but all in vain. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present writ application.

¶11

The respondents have filed the report in the form of affidavit disclosing the document dated November 19, 2025 wherein the Block Development Officer, Mathurapur-II, Development Block, South 24 Parganas informed the District Magistrate that as per the record, the petitioner has in no way ineligible for payment of Rs.

¶12

¶13

7,49,258/- and requested for taking appropriate steps for sanction of the said amount.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation. He submits that the claim of the petitioner is of the year 2020 but the petitioner has filed the present writ application in the year 2025. It is true that the work order has been issued to the petitioner in the year 2020 but the petitioner has filed the present writ application in the year 2025. This Court also finds that the respondent authorities have admitted the claim of the petitioner not Rs. 7,92,000/- but Rs. 7,49,258/-.

¶15

Accordingly, without going into the matter whether the claim made by the petitioner is barred by limitation as the respondent authorities have admitted the claim of the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 is directed to sanction the amount of Rs. 7,49,258/- within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order and on sanction of the said amount, the respondent no. 3 shall release the said amount in favour of the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶16

WPA 20470 of 2025 is disposed of. 7. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities.

¶17

(Krishna Rao, J.)

Bapi Das v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bapi Das v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Zakir Hossain Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Mittal Polypacks Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ex Nk Mozammel Hoque @ Mozammel Hoque Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jalpaiguri Municipality Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii

M/S. Khagaul Loco Labours Cooperative Society Limited and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Piu Roy Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.