The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Sep-2024 11:57:11 THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 9705 OF 2013 Bideshi Pradhan …. Petitioner Mr. Gopal Krishna Nayak, Advocate State of Odisha and others … Opp. Parties -versus-
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Debendra Kumar Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel (For Opp. Party Nos.1 to 3) Mr. Sougat Dash, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.4) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 03.09.2024 7. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction to the Opposite Parties, more particularly, the Project Administrator, Integrated Tribal Development Agency (ITDA), Balliguda, Kandhamal-Opposite Party No.4 to release the payment for the work done by him as per the work order under Annexure-1. 3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that pursuant to the work order under Annexure-1, the Petitioner was entrusted to repair Radha Sevashram Primary School Hostel and construction of new toilets. The estimated cost of project was Rs.1, 20,000/-. The work commenced since 25th December, 2006 and was completed on 30th March, 2007. It is his submission that in spite of his best efforts, the Petitioner was not Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Sep-2024 11:57:11 paid his bill raised in the project. He further submits that pursuant to letter No.2626/ITDA dated 12th December, 2012 (Annexure-2), the Project Administrator-Opposite Party No.4 had intimated the Petitioner to submit the photographs of repaired work done by him. Although the Welfare Extension Officer, Kotagarh wrote to the Block Development Officer, Kotagarh vide his letter No.24 dated 7th January, 2013 (Annexure-3) stating that the repairing work has been done by the Petitioner, but it was not paid any heed. 4. It is his submission that due to passage of time, there was some deterioration in the repair and construction work. But the Petitioner is not responsible for the same. Had the request of the Petitioner been attended within a reasonable time, he would have been paid his dues. Since he failed from all quarters for release of his dues, this writ petition has been filed for the aforesaid relief. 5. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.4 vehemently objects to the same. It is his submission that the Petitioner had never cooperated for measurement of the work done by him. Thus, completion certificate of the project could not be issued. However, the Petitioner had submitted representation for release of his dues, which was duly attended to. The Welfare Extension Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Kotagarh had visited the spot on 4th January, 2023 at around 11.30 A.M. and found that the hostel building was in pitiable condition. Latrines construed are not in a position to be used. The Headmaster of the Radha Sevashram Primary School also Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Sep-2024 11:57:11 intimated that the hostel rooms are in damaged condition and the latrines are not in a condition to be used. Mr. Dash, learned counsel also refers to the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party No.4, relevant portion of which reads as under: “9. That the averments made at paragraph 8 of the writ application, it is humbly submitted that the action of non- payment of work bill is termed as illegal and arbitrary on the part of the OP. No. 4, which is ridiculous. It is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to execute the work as per specification and to the satisfaction of the concerned Jr. Engineer and Asst, Engineer. The enquiry reports furnished by the WEO, Kotagarh, Headsevak., Radha Sevashram and Asst. Engineer, ITDA, Balliguda clearly shows that the hostel building and toilets are in dilapidated condition, which needs to be declared unsafe. There is a condition in the agreement to take up measurement and make payment at least once in a month. But, no measurement was taken up, which implies a meaning that the petitioner has not submitted any report relating to stage wise progress of the work and quantity of work executed by him time to time. A present, no symbol of repair of hostel building is existing. The measurement of quantity of work attended by the petitioner was forbidden through efflux of time, which the was resulted due petitioner. In the present condition of the building it is not viable to take up fresh measurement, which is an essential ingredient for taking into consideration of payment. It is also an uphill task to elucidate the quantum and type of work executed by the petitioner in the present scenario. The submission of the petitioner is not worthy considering his dismal performance by executing the substandard work. Accordingly, petitioner is baseless and afterthought. Thus, the prayer of the petitioner is devoid of any merit, which is liable to bedismissed.” lackadaisical attitude of the claim of to 6. It is his submission that the Asst. Engineer, ITDA, Balliguda in his Letter dated 23rd September, 2013 addressed to Opposite Party No.4 has clearly stated that the PSH Hostel building is fully damaged and not suitable for staying of Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Sep-2024 11:57:11 boarders. The AC sheet roofing is damaged and there is profused leaking everywhere. The doors and windows are also fully damaged. The plastering and flooring work are partly damaged. Thus, he recommended to declare the building abandoned to avoid any causality. So far as constructions of two toilets are concerned, it was specifically stated that those are fully damaged and there was no doors in the latrines. The brick walls of the latrines were also fully damaged. It is also stated that the latrine pans were not installed. He, therefore, submits that the Petitioner is not at all entitled to the dues claimed. 7. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that there are several disputed questions of fact involved in the writ petition to be adjudicated by receiving evidence from the parties. Thus, this Court is not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to consider the relief, prayed for. It further appears that the work was completed in 2007 and the writ petition was filed in the year, 2013. There is no material on record to show as to what happened during 2007 to 2012. It also appears that the Petitioner had never approached the Authorities for measurement of work done after its completion. Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ms (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Page 4 of 4