- (1.) This writ arises out of a corridor development project undertaken by the Government of West Bengal. As part of the project the existing road from Buniadpur Gajol to Hilli and from Patiram to Balurgat had to be maintained during the period from April 2005 to 2006. This writ application is founded on an alleged claim by the writ petitioner that the Government of West Bengal is liable to pay for all the work which the writ petitioner has allegedly done with regard to such maintenance work. Although affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the State Government, none appears for them even at the second call. I have gone through their affidavit-in-opposition. From the records it appears that the Government of West Bengal had entrusted one Elsamex SA, a company of Spain to carry out the main work. The writ petitioner may have been employed by this enterprise of Spain as a subcontractor or may have done work for them without a formal contract, on request basis.
(2.) One thing is quite certain that there was no contractual relationship between the Government of West Bengal and the writ petitioner. Nothing has been shown to even suggest some kind of such relationship. Now, at the time of argument the Contract Act, including section 70 was shown to me that if any work is taken by one person from another, which is the State in this case, that person has to make compensation to the other. Various decisions have been cited to show that in such relationships the court in exercise of writ jurisdiction can pass orders for payment of money. I do not find it necessary to discuss the Contract Act or to note those decisions because no direct relationship between the Government of West Bengal and the writ petitioner is on record. If there is no direct relationship between the Government of West Bengal and the writ petitioner there is no question whatsoever of any work having been done by the writ petitioner for such Government and its claim for payment for such work. This is entirely a private dispute between the writ petitioner and the foreign party, being proforma respondent No.5 who had allegedly employed the writ petitioner to do some work for them. No involvement of any public law is involved.
(3.) This is an absolutely frivolous writ application, more frivolous because this Spanish company has been made a proforma respondent. It is absolutely speculative. I would dismiss it. Showing leniency to the writ petitioner, I am not imposing any costs. However, such dismissal will not preclude the writ petitioner to institute any action against the said proforma respondent on the self same cause of action. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.;