Kailashahar,Anupam Pal, 30 May: The Kailashahar Municipal Council may now have to pay the price for failing to clear a legitimate payment due to a consultancy firm for nearly 13 years, as a court has ordered the attachment of its properties. The move has created considerable concern within administrative circles, as the council allegedly failed to comply with clear judicial directives regarding the outstanding payment.
The dispute dates back to 2013, when MEC Engineering Consultancy Firm was entrusted with preparing the Detailed Project Report (DPR) for a housing project under the then Rajiv Gandhi Awas Yojana. Although the firm submitted the report as required, it allegedly did not receive full payment for its services. Out of a bill amounting to nearly ₹30 lakh, only about ₹10 lakh was paid, while the remaining amount remained outstanding for years.
After repeated requests for payment reportedly went unanswered, the firm’s partner, Malayendra Ghosh Roy, approached the court seeking legal remedy. Following prolonged hearings, the Senior Civil Judge (Court No. 2) of Unakoti Judicial District delivered a judgment in his favor on April 26, 2022. The court directed the Municipal Council to pay the principal amount of ₹19.59 lakh along with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum.
However, as no effective steps were taken to comply with the judgment, the matter proceeded to Execution Case No. 01(M)/2023. With the addition of accrued interest, the total outstanding amount has now risen to ₹23,42,637.
The situation has reached a stage where the court has ordered the attachment of specific movable properties belonging to the Kailashahar Municipal Council to recover the dues. According to the warrant, the items identified for attachment include the office chair used by the Chief Executive Officer and nine government vehicles under the council’s control. These include pickup vans, Tata Ace vehicles, Tata Super Ace vehicles, and an LPT truck.
A recent notice issued by the Office of the District and Sessions Judge stated that court bailiffs would visit the Municipal Council office on May 30, 2026, to execute the court’s order. The Chief Executive Officer was also directed to remain present during the process.
According to members of the legal fraternity, although the lower court’s judgment was challenged before a higher court, the original verdict was ultimately upheld. Consequently, there are no significant legal obstacles remaining to the enforcement of the court’s order.
Meanwhile, reliable sources indicate that an emergency meeting of councilors was recently convened to discuss the matter. Deliberations reportedly focused on clearing the outstanding dues and avoiding the attachment of municipal properties. Sources further suggest that municipal authorities may initiate discussions with the claimant early next week in an attempt to resolve the issue amicably.
However, no official statement has yet been issued by the Municipal Council. The key question now is whether the council will settle the dues before the court’s attachment order is enforced, or whether the seizure of municipal property will become a reality, marking a significant example of administrative failure.
