Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Mr. Akash D. Ganguly, Adv. 

For the State:                              Mr. Kishore Datta, Ld. AG
                                            Mr. Satyajit Talukder, Adv.
                                            Mr. Abhisek Guha, Adv.
                                            Ms. Sonal Agarwal, Adv.
 Last Heard on:       20.06.2024
Judgement on:        04.07.2024



PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J:-

1. In these two appeals the judgement dated April 25, 2022 as passed by the Learned Single Bench in WPO/475/2016 has been assailed both by the writ petitioner( in APOT No. 220 of 2022) and by the respondent Authority( in APOT No. 190 of 2022).

3. The respondent Authority felt aggrieved and thus preferred appeal vide; APOT No. 190 of 2022.

4. The writ petitioner also felt aggrieved for not grant of any interest upon the claim amount by the Learned Single Judge and thus approached this Court by filling appeal vide; APOT No. 220 of 2022.

5. Since in these two appeals common questions of facts and laws are involved and since the parties to the instant two appeals are identical and also since both these appeals arise out of a common judgement, we propose to dispose the instant two appeals by a common judgement.

10. Mr. Mukherjee, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner thus submits that the appeal being APOT No. 220 of 2022 may be allowed by awarding adequate interest upon the awarded amount.

11. Mr. Mukherjee, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner further submits that the Learned Single Bench however in the impugned judgment rightly noticed that the Law of the land as well as the aforesaid three clauses of the contract do not permit the respondent Authorities to recover the alleged liquidated damages by way deduction of the dues of the writ petitioner in connection with a separate project i.e.; Uluberia project and thus APOT No. 190 of 2022 may be dismissed.

13. Placing his reliance upon the reported decision of 'Kearla State Electricity Board & another -vs- Kurien E.Kalathil & others' reported in (2000) 6 SCC 293, it is argued by Mr. Dutta Learned Advocate General for the respondent Authority that the Learned Single Judge acted beyond its jurisdiction in interpreting the aforesaid three clauses of the contract while sitting in a writ jurisdiction. Mr. Dutta Learned Advocate General for the respondent Authority thus submits that it is a fit case for allowing APOT No. 190 of 2022 by setting aside the impugned order and for dismissing the APOT No. 220 of 2022.