Authority: High Court at Calcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction) – Appellate Side

Order Date: 10 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: petitioner Amal Biswas, sole proprietor of URJA INFRA, versus State of West Bengal and other respondents (respondent no.2, no.5, no.6, etc.).
  • Contract: Letter of Acceptance‑cum‑Work Order dated 28 Feb 2024 for construction of Kotalpara Kshusiganj Road (0.00‑7.90 km) – river side embankment protection and strengthening, under Hooghly Construction Division, 9‑month schedule ending 29 Nov 2024; Tender No. 33/Hooghly Construction Division/SEWC‑II/PWD 2023‑24; Administrative Approval Amount Rs 248,039,931; Tendered Amount Rs 256,260,628; Contractual Rate 9/95% Above.
  • Work progress: Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) and Wet Mix Macadam (WMM) layers completed up to specified chainages before monsoon.
  • Flood events: heavy rain in August 2024 and sudden water release by Damodar Valley Corporation on 18 Sep 2024 caused extensive damage to the road; technical audit by Prof. M. Amarnatha Reddy (IIT Kharagpur) found test results within acceptable limits (MORTH Table 500‑13).
  • Communications: respondents issued multiple letters directing repair, granting extensions (till 28 Feb 2025, then till 6 Sep 2025), show‑cause notices, and a penalty under Clause II; finally, Memo No. 1515 dated 28 July 2025 terminated the contract and ordered forfeiture of earnest money and security deposit.
  • Petitioner’s contentions: damages were due to natural calamity, not contractor fault; sought compensation and time extension; argued termination arbitrary and contrary to meeting minutes dated 27 Jan 2025.
  • Respondents’ contentions: petitioner failed to repair despite notices; public agitation demanded urgent repair; invoked contractual clauses to terminate and invite fresh tender.
  • Judicial precedents cited: Subodh Kumar Singh Rathore v. CEO (2024), Unitech Ltd v. TSIIC (2021), Kailash Nath Associates v. DDA (2015) – establishing that time of the essence cannot be waived unilaterally and that Article 226 writs are maintainable in contractual disputes.

Final Outcome

  • The Court set aside and quashed Memo No. 1515 dated 28 July 2025, declaring the termination arbitrary and invalid.
  • WPA No. 17733 of 2025 is allowed; the writ petition is granted.
  • Parties are directed to act on the server copy of the judgment; certified photocopies may be obtained upon compliance with requisite formalities.

Topics: Contract Law, Public Procurement, Judicial Review