WP(C)/667/2025 of Sri Mukti Pada Deb Vs Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. (TSECL) and another on 1 December 2025

1. Sri Mukti Pada Deb, son of late Kumud Ranjan Deb, resident of Santi Palli, Manughat, P.O. Manughat, P.S. Manughat District: Dhalai Tripura. …..Petitioner _V_E_R_S_U_S_

1. The Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. (TSECL) represented by the CMD, Electrical Division, Kumarghat, Unokoti Tripura.

2. The Deputy General Manager Electric Division Manu, Manu, Dhalai Tripura.

…..Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Das, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. N. Majumder, Sr. Advocate. Mr. K. Deb, Advocate.

HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD

_F_I_N_A_L_O_ R_ D_ E_ R_ 01.12.2025

Heard.

The present petition has been filed under Article-226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents and each of them to release the withheld bills amounting to Rs.15,59,868/- only forthwith.

The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “i. Admit this petition.

ii. Issue notice upon the respondents.

iii. Call for records and

iv. After hearing the parties Hon’ble Court would graciously be pleased to direct the respondents and each of them to release the withheld bill amounting Rs.15,59,868/- (Fifteen lakh fifty nine thousand eight hundred and eighty six) only along with 9% interest forthwith and also pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice.”

The facts in brief are that the petitioner is an enlisted contractor under the respondents and bears a good reputation in the government contracts and discharges different works under the respondents with utmost care and caution and high integrity. The petitioner being the enlisted contractor used to work on issuing of work order and the works are like such emergent in nature that to be discharge as and when require. For example the main power line restoration, reconstruction of power supply, reconstruction of power supply pillar damaged due to storm or other natural calamities etc. Since 2017 there are some works whereby the respondents are not releasing the bills. On words 2017 there are 106 numbers of bill in toto comes to Rs. 15,59,868.00/-. The petitioner made communication to the respondent on 29-03-23 but the respondents are not responding except a verbal communication that funds are not available. Such in action of the respondents infringed the legal right of the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to get a direction for release the bill with in time frame from the respondents.

Hence, the present petitioner has been preferred by the petitioner before this Court for redress.

Mr. B. N. Majumder, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the demand made by the petitioner is incorrect and he is not entitled for the said claim and more so, it might be around one lakh only but not fifteen lakhs and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

In view of above and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the matter is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider representation filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, in accordance with law. However, whatever the decision is taken by the concerned respondent, the same may be communicated to the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, the present petition stands disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous application, pending if any, shall stands closed.

DR.T. AMARNATH GOUD, J

A. Ghosh ANJAN GHOSH Digitally signed by ANJAN GHOSH Date: 2025.12.04 16:53:36 +05'30'