The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 4192 of 2025 Chakadola Construction Pvt. Ltd. and another …. Petitioners State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties -Versus- Advocates appeared in this case: For Petitioner : Mr. Sidhant Dwibedi, Advocate For Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Suman Pattanayak, Addl. Government Advocate CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN J U D G M E N T -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing and Judgment : 20th September, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARISH TANDON, CJ. 1. The work awarded to the petitioner-company was undertaken by it not only in terms of the tender, but to the satisfaction of the authorities yet. The RA bill submitted was not paid which constrained the petitioners to move the writ petition before this Court. W.P.(C) No. 4192 of 2025 Page 1 of 7 2. At the time of admission of the instant writ petition, the attention of the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State-opposite parties was drawn and an opportunity to file an affidavit was afforded to them. The counter affidavit filed by the State reveals inconsistent statements and a submission is advanced that whatever bill is submitted by the petitioners has been paid off. 3. The petitioners raise a point that though the RA bill has now been paid, the authorities have not prepared the final bill after taking the measurement upon completion of the work and, therefore, they are still in default. 4. Interestingly, a stand is taken by the State-opposite parties before us that since the petitioners did not submit the final bill, there was no occasion to make any payments. After the attention is drawn to Clause-7 of the conditions of contract, it is sought to be contended taking shelter under the averments made in paragraphs-15, 16 and 17 of the counter affidavit that the entire measurement was undertaken by the authorities and the payment has been released on the basis thereof, and, therefore, there is no subsisting claim which is required to be paid. It is sought to be contended that Clause-6 of W.P.(C) No. 4192 of 2025 Page 2 of 7 the conditions of contract provides for measurement and after taking the measurement, the amount has been determined which would be regarded as a full and final settlement of the claim of the petitioners. 5. We are unable to accept such stand taken by the State- opposite parties. Clause-6 provides that a bill shall be submitted by the contractor every month on or before the date fixed by the Engineer-in-Charge or his sub-ordinate and a requisite measurement for such purpose of verification of the claim shall be taken and in the event, such bill is not submitted on a monthly basis, the said authority shall take a measurement of the said work in presence of the contractor, who is required to countersign on the measurement sheet which shall be binding on him. The said Clause is quoted as under: “Payment of intermediate certificate to be regarded as advances and bill to be submitted. Clause -6 : A bill shall be submitted by the contractor each month on or before the date fixed by the Engineer- in-Charge or his sub-ordinate shall take the requisite measurement for the purpose of having the same verified and the claim, as far as admissible, adjusted, if possible, before the expiry of ten days from the representation of W.P.(C) No. 4192 of 2025 Page 3 of 7 the bill. If the contractor does not submit the bill within the time fixed as aforesaid, the Engineer-in-Charge or his subordinate shall measure up the said work in the presence of the contractor whose countersignature of the measurement list will be sufficient warrant, and the Engineer-in-charge or his sub-ordinate shall prepare a bill from such list which shall be binding on the contractor in all respects. Provided that, if any balance of 10% security is outstanding from each such payment shall be deducted so much, not exceeding 5% as may be necessary to make up the balance of the security. All such intermediate payments to the contractor shall be regarded as payments by way of advance against the final payment only and not as payments for work actually done and completed, and shall not preclude the requiring of bad, unsound and imperfect or unskillful work to be removed and taken away and reconstructed or re- erected, or be considered as an W.P.(C) No. 4192 of 2025 Page 4 of 7 admission of the due performance of the contract, or any part thereof in any respect, or the actual of any claim nor shall it conclude, determine, of effect in any way the powers of the Engineer in-charge under these conditions or any of them as to the final settlement or adjustment of the accounts or otherwise, or in any other way vary or affect the contract.” 6. On the meaningful reading of the said Clause, it appears that since construction is done uninterruptedly and/or continuously, the running bill is required to be submitted on a monthly basis for the works done during the said month and the payments are to be released after the measurement is taken by the concerned officer mentioned in Clause-6 of the said condition of contract. It further postulates that in the event such bill is not submitted, yet a duty is cast upon the said officer to take a measurement and invite the attention of the contractor to put the countersignature thereupon with the restrictions that later on the contractor will not raise any objection thereto. The said Clause is applicable in relation to an ongoing construction work and cannot be regarded as a final bill. By no stretch of imagination, any interpretation can be assigned to such W.P.(C) No. 4192 of 2025 Page 5 of 7 Clause in relation to the final bill which comes under Clause-7 of the said conditions of contract. Clause-7 provides the final bill to be prepared by the offices of the Rural Works Department in accordance with the rules of the Department in presence of the contractor within one month of the date fixed for completion of the work. It conveys a clear intention of the contracting parties that Clause-6 is applicable with regard to the ongoing construction and Clause-7 is relatable to a final bill to be prepared by the office after the said work is completed. The authority was conscious of such aspect and clearly averred in paragraph-17 of the counter affidavit that since the final bill was not submitted by the contractor, the payment could not be made. There lies a fallacy in the stand of the State-opposite parties. Clause-7 does not mandate the submission of final bill by the contractor, but it is a duty cast upon the Office of the Rural Works Department to prepare the final bill and to make the payments thereupon. 7. Though the learned counsel for the State tried to interpret the averments made in the counter affidavit taking a circuitous route, but we do not find any ambiguity in the aforesaid Clause for the reason that it operates in a different contingency and/or eventuality. W.P.(C) No. 4192 of 2025 Page 6 of 7 The payment of the last RA bill cannot be construed as the payment of final bill. Preparation of final bill is a paramount duty of the office and, therefore, the stand of the State-opposite parties before us is unsustainable and unacceptable. 8. We direct the Office of the Rural Works Department to undertake an exercise as contemplated in the said Clause-7 within a month from the date of communication of this order and shall raise the final bill and in the event, any amount is owed to the Department, the same shall be paid within a month therefrom. 9.
Decision
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (M.S. Raman) Judge (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice S.K. Guin/ PA Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Sep-2025 11:50:09 W.P.(C) No. 4192 of 2025 Page 7 of 7