The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.12657 of 2025 M/s P.k. Behura And Co Infra Pvt Ltd, Bbsr ..... Petitioner State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... -versus- Represented By Adv. - Ishwar Mohanty Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Ms. S.Nayak, A.S.C. Mr. G.p. Dutta, S.k. Mohanty, S.r. Ojha, K.m. Bhuyan CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 02.12.2025 This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Order No. 07. 1. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Petitioner and Mr. G.P.Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2-Odisha Police Housing and Welfare Corporation Ltd. as well as the learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. By filing the present writ application the Petitioner who happens to contractor has approached this Court with the following relief- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court, may graciously be pleased to: i. Admit this petition. ii. Pass a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the OP no.2 Corporation to release the [Annexure approved bills of the Petitioner Page 1 of 6. 3(SERIES)] forthwith along with interest at the rate as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court. And, to pass any other further be pleased Order/Orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that initially the Opposite Party No.2-Corporation issued a letter of intent in favour of the Petitioner for construction of the buildings as has been indicated at Annexure-1 agreement, as per the work order dated 18.07.2023. Pursuant to the aforesaid work order the Petitioner carried out the construction work and submitted his bills to the Opposite Parties. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that six running account bills were raised against the Opposite Parties to the tune of Rs.2.27 crores and the same was approved by the Opposite Party No.2-Corporation. However, such bills have not been cleared as of now by the Opposite Party No.2- Corporation. 5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that on a perusal of Annexure-3 series, it would be clear that the bills raised by the Petitioner at different points of time with regard to the construction work carried out by the Petitioner were duly passed for payment and the same has eventually been approved by the Project Manager who is overlooking the construction work under the Balasore Division, Opposite Party No.2-Corporation. Despite the fact that the construction work was carried out, the bill was submitted consequently and it was passed for payment with the approval of the Project Manager, the Opposite Parties have not cleared such bills of the Petitioner. As a result of which the Petitioner has not received his dues payable to him by the Opposite Party No-2-Corporation, which had initially issued the work order. Page 2 of 6. Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the Opposite Party No.2-Corporation, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite party No.2 to clear the admitted dues of the Petitioner within a stipulated period of time. 6. Mr. G.P.Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2- Corporation on the other hand contended that although the Opposite Party No.2- Corporation does not dispute the issuance of the work order in favour of the Petitioner and consequential execution of the agreement on 18.07.2023, however the payment has not been made as the corporation did not receive funds from the Govt. of Odisha. He further submitted that the work order was issued on the request of the Govt. of Odisha for construction of academic blocks of different educational institution by the Higher Education Department. It was specifically argued by Mr.G.P.Dutta, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Corporation that since the Government delayed the payment of the second instalment amount, as agreed by the Government, the Opposite Party No.2- Corporation could not release the money in favour of the contractors who were engaged in the construction work pursuant to the work order and agreement dated 18.07.2023. Lastly, Mr. G.P.Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2-Corporation submitted before this Court that the fault lies elsewhere and not with the Opposite Party No.2-Corporation. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 stated before this Court that no fault can be found with the conduct/inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 in not making the timely payment of the dues payable to the Petitioner/contractor. Page 3 of 6. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted before this Court that she has not received any instruction regarding the matter. On perusal of the record it appears that although in the present writ application notices were issued in May, 2025, however despite several adjournments no instruction has been obtained by the learned counsel for the State. Nevertheless, on the basis of the record available in the writ application, learned counsel for the State contended that the dispute involved in the present writ application is basically between the contractual parties i.e. the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2. Therefore, the State has no role in such dispute. Accordingly, it was prayed that the writ application be dismissed so far the Opposite Party-State is concerned. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the documents annexed to the writ application, this Court observes that the Petitioner was initially issued with a valid work order and an agreement was executed pursuant to such work order on 18.07.2022. The documents annexed to the writ application, particularly those at Annexure-3 series, reveal that after the work order was executed the Petitioner- contractor submitted multiple bills for the running work. It appears that Such bills have been passed by the Competent Authority and have also approved and counter signed by the Project Manager of the Opposite Party No.2-Corporation. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the view that there exists no dispute with regard to the dues payable to the Petitioner as the bills submitted by the Petitioner have already been approved by the Opposite Party No.2-Corporation. So far the liability is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that in light of the work order and the Page 4 of 6. agreement executed on 18.07.2023, it is the Opposite Party No.2- Corporation who had engaged the Petitioner as a Contractor and a work order was issued to him to carry out certain construction work. Upon completion of such construction work, bills have been submitted by the Petitioner to the Opposite Party No.2-Corporation and there is no doubt that the money is to be paid by the Opposite Party No.2-Corporation to the Petitioner. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the view that contrary to the contentions of the learned counsel for the State has no role so far the present dispute is concerned. Further, this Court holds that in the event there exists a dispute between the Opposite Party No.2-Corporation and Govt. it is confined to the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 and for their latches the Petitioner should not suffer. Especially if the Petitioner has already executed the work as is evident from the documents annexed to the present writ application. 9. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the dues payable to the petitioner as per the bills under Annexure-3, which have been approved for payment by the Project Manager, should have been paid to the Petitioner within a stipulated period of time in the event such bills have not been cleared as of now. This Court also holds that the same is a violation of the conditions of the work order as well as the agreement executed on 18.07.2023. In such view of the matter, this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the grievance of the Petitioner and in the event it is found that the bills have been passed for payment and the same has been counter signed by the Project Manager of the Opposite Party No.2, necessary steps be taken to clear the dues of the Petitioner by following due procedure, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a Page 5 of 6. copy of today’s order. Further, liberty is granted to the Opposite Party No.2 to approach the State Government-Opposite Party No.1, in the event the second instalment of the contracted amount has not been received by the Corporation in the meantime and, if any such attempt is made by the Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.1 shall consider the same and take a decision as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date on which the opposite Party No.2 approaches the Opposite Party No.1. 10. Additionally, since there is a delay in payment not due to the latches on the part of the Petitioner-contractor, the Opposite Party No.2- Corporation while clearing the administrative dues as is payable to the Petitioner, as per the Annexure-3 series, shall also consider payment of interest on the outstanding dues as is permissible under the law. In the event any interest is paid to the Petitioner by the Opposite Party No.2-Corporation, liberty is granted to the Opposite Party No.2 to adjust the same from the State- Opposite Party No.1 who shall make good such losses borne by the corporation due to delay in payment by the Opposite Party No.1 to Opposite Party No.2. 11. With the aforesaid observation and directions the Writ
Decision
Application stands disposed of. Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 6 of 6. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 04-Dec-2025 19:05:12