The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.21265 of 2025 M/s Neta Security Services Pvt. Ltd., BBSR ..... Petitioner Represented By Sr.Adv. - M/s.M.kanungo along with Mr.soumya Ranjan Mohanty State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties -versus- Represented By Adv. – Mr. U.C.Jena, A.S.C. M/s. Bibhu Prasad Tripathy , M.achary,n. Barik, P.agrawal WP(C) No.22997 of 2025 M/s Neta Security Services Pvt. Ltd., BBSR ..... Petitioner Represented By Sr.Adv. - M/s.M.kanungo along with Mr.soumya Ranjan Mohanty State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties -versus- Represented By Adv. – Mr. U.C.Jena, A.S.C. M/s. Bibhu Prasad Tripathy , M.achary,n. Barik, P.agrawal CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 25.11.2025 Page 1 of 10. Order No. 02. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. M.Kanungo, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State. Perused the pleadings of the respective parties as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. Since W.P.(C) No.21265 of 2025 and W.P.(C) No.22997 of 2025 arise out of the self-same subject matter of dispute, which is common in both writ applications, and the parties involved in both
Decision
the writ petitions are identical, this Court deems it proper to hear the matters together and the same is being disposed of by the following common order. 4. Initially the present W.P.(C) No.21265 of 2025 was been filed at the instance of the Petitioner with a prayer to quash the notice under Annexures-7 and 10 and to direct the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 to withdraw the order withholding the work order and to direct the Opposite Parties to permit the Petitioner to execute the work order as per the agreement. The said writ application was heard and notices were issued to the Opposite Parties on 31.07.2025. Further, as an interim in I.A. No.12787 of 2025 this Court permitted the Petitioner therein to approach the Collector, Malkangiri by filing a representation and in such eventuality, the Collector, Malkangiri was directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law by passing a speaking order within two weeks thereafter. 5. Pursuant to interim order dated 31.07.2025, though the Petitioner filed a representation, however the same has not been Page 2 of 10. disposed of as of now. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner at this stage contended that instead of disposing of the representation of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party-Collector, Malkangiri passed order dated 12.08.2025, withdrawing the work order that was issued in favour of the Petitioner to provide housekeeping service. Being aggrieved by order dated 12.08.2025, the Petitioner has again approached this Court by filing a subsequent writ application which was registered as W.P.(C) No.22997 of 2025. In the subsequent writ application, the Petitioner has sought for a relief to quash the letter dated 12.08.2025, under Anneuxre-13, whereby the work order issued in favour of the Petitioner to provide housekeeping service has been withdrawn and further to direct to Opposite Parties to permit the Petitioner to execute the work order as per the agreement. 6. On perusal of the prayer made in the both writ applications as well as the background facts, this Court is of the view that both the writ applications involve on almost identical set of facts and contain prayers for somewhat similar reliefs. Such facts leading to filing of the present writ applications, in a nutshell, are that the Petitioner, which is an outsourcing agency, provides housekeeping service to the hospital in the district of Malkangiri. Pursuant to the request of proposal quoted by Opposite Party No.5, requiring housekeeping service in Government Health Institutions, the district of Malkangiri dated 13.03.2024, the Petitioner submitted his bid. Accordingly, vide letter dated 04.11.2024, the Opposite Party No.5 called upon the eligible tenders for evaluation of financial bid. During such evaluation of the bid, it was found that the present Petitioner became L1 in the financial bid. Consequently, the Opposite Party No.5 called upon the Petitioner vide letter dated 02.05.2025 to accept the Page 3 of 10. proposal and to execute the agreement, he was also asked to deposit the performance security for getting the work order. Finally, the Petitioner was issued with work order vide letter dated 05.05.2025. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, at this stage, submitted that pursuant to the work order dated 05.05.2025 at Anenxure-4, the Petitioner provides the man power which was required for the housekeeping service at Government Health Institutions in the district of Malkangiri and they were deployed in the hospitals as per the guideline and criteria laid down in the work order. Thereafter, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and Opposite Party No.5 on 05.05.2025. 7. He further contended that while the Petitioner was executing the work order and providing the services to the Government Health Institutions, an order was passed abruptly withdrawing the work order issued in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was informed that since a complaint has been received against him, pending inquiry, the work order has been put up for suspension. On further inquiry, the Petitioner came to learn that the complainant named in such complaint happens to be a practicing lawyer. When the complainant was contacted, he categorically denied having ever lodged such a complaint. Such fact was also brought to the notice of the Opposite Party No.5, the complainant on his own has not only intimated the outsourcing agency that he has never lodged any complaint, he has also lodged an F.I.R. alleging misuse of his name by some antisocial persons. The case is still at the stage of investigation. 8. While this was the position, the Collector, Malkangiri, on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the Mission Director NHM, Page 4 of 10. Odisha, wrote a letter to the Collector-D.M., Malkangiri on 07.07.2025 at Annexure-11, wherein it has been categorically indicated that the one Sumanta Kumar Swain, Advocate has submitted withdrawal petition withdrawing the complaint against the present Petitioner. A copy of the letter of the complainant withdrawing the complaint has also been attached to such letter. However, ignoring the said letter dated 07.07.2025, the Collector, Malkangiri did not allow the Petitioner to execute the work order as has been assigned to him on 05.05.2025. Being aggrieved by such conduct, the Petitioner initially approached this Court by filing the first writ application i.e. W.P.(C) No.21265 of 2025 with the prayer as has been indicated hereinabove. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ application, this Court, as an interim, permitted the Petitioner to file the representation before the Collector, Malkangiri for consideration. Though such representation has not been disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court, however, the Collector, Malkangiri vide order dated 12.08.2025 withheld the mechanised housekeeping service selected pursuant to letter dated 13.03.2024 pending verification of documents related to T4B and T4C from institution level. Moreover, the work order for providing housekeeping service which was earlier issued in favour of the Petitioner has also been specifically withdrawn by the Collector- DM, Malkangiri vide letter dated 12.08.2025 at Anenxure-13 to the second writ application. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has approached this Court challenging such order of withdrawal principally on the ground that no opportunity whatsoever was provided to the Petitioner before passing the order dated 12.08.2025. Page 5 of 10. 9. Mr. M.Kanungo, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, while assailing the impugned conduct of the Opposite Party-Collector-D.N.,Malkangiri contended that the order dated 12.08.2025 is unsustainable in law principally on two grounds. 1) That no opportunity to show cause was provided to the Petitioner before passing the order withdrawing of the work order. 2) That the complaint basing upon which the action was taken had already been withdrawn by the complaint and such fact has already been intimated to the Collector-D.N. Malkangiri as has been indicated in the preceding paragraph. 10. On the abovenoted two grounds, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contended that order dated 12.08.2025 can very well be termed as an arbitrary exercise of power by the Collector-D.N. Malkangiri. Hence, the same is unsustainable in law and, as such, order dated 12.08.2025 is required to be quashed. 11. In reply to the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the State submitted that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality at all in passing order dated 12.08.2025, he further submitted that although the Petitioner was selected as he was one L1 bidder and he was issued with the work order, however subsequently it was detected that some complaints have been received against the present Petitioner. Moreover, certain documents which have been referred to letter dated 12.08.2025, it was also not verified before issuing work order. On such ground, the Opposite Parties were fully justified in withdrawing work order pending verification of the documents as has been indicated in letter dated 12.08.2025. A detailed counter affidavit has also been filed by the State-Opposite Page 6 of 10. Party. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the State, referring to such counter affidavit, tried to justify the conduct of the Opposite Parties in passing order dated 12.08.2025. Finally, learned counsel for the State contended that although the work order has been withdrawn, however the agreement has not been cancelled as of now. Thus, pending inquiry, the Opposite Parties were fully within their authority to withdraw the work order till a final decision is taken in the matter. It was further emphasised that pending such inquiry the agreement executed with the Petitioner has not been cancelled as of now. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the Opposite Parties have committed any illegality at all. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the writ petitions filed at the instance of the Petitioner are premature and the same are liable to be dismissed at this stage. 12. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the pleadings, further on a close scrutiny of the documents placed before this Court, this Court observes that the grievance of the Petitioner in the both writ applications is with regard to withdrawal of the work order that was issued in favour of the petitioner on 05.05.2025. Such work order was issued to provide housekeeping service at different Government Health Institutions in the district of Malkangiri. It is alleged by the Petitioner that on the basis of a false and manufactured complaint the work order has been withdrawn. Such assertion of the petitioner was countered by the Opposite Party by saying that pending verification of the documents as well as the complaint, the work order has already been withdrawn and that the entire agreement has already been cancelled. In the Page 7 of 10. aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is required to examine the legality and the validity of the action taken by the Collector- D.M. Malkangiri vide letter dated 12.08.2025, thereby withdrawing the work order issued in favour of the Petitioner. 13. It is not disputed at bar that Petitioner was duly selected as he was one L1 bidder and thereafter he has been assigned with the work order after due execution of an agreement. While the Petitioner was executing the work order and performing his duties, certain complaints were received against the petitioner. Pending inquiry of such complaint, the work order has been withdrawn. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the State produced a copy of letter dated 24.11.2025 of the CDM & PHO, Malkangiri. On perusal of the said letter it appears that instruction has been provided by the CDM&PHO, Malkangiri pursuant to the order passed by this Court on earlier date. Such letter providing instruction to the Office of the Advocate General, Odisha issued by the CDM&PHO, Malkangiri reveals that the Collector, Malkangiri has passed on order dated 12.09.2025 (no such letter was produced before this Court and the impugned order in the present writ application is dated 12.08.2025) after due perusal of the record and reports submitted by different officers of the State and after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties. In this context, this Court would like to observe that the D.M-Collector, Malkangiri should have filed an affidavit clearly stating therein that opportunity of hearing was provided to both sides before passing the impugned order. However, an instruction has been given by the CDM & PHO, Malkangiri stating therein that the Collector had provided an opportunity of hearing to both sides, which is unbelievable and unacceptable to this Court. In the letter Page 8 of 10. dated 24.11.2025 produced by the learned counsel for the State before this Court, a substance of the reports received have also been quoted. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner stated that the copies of the report that have been referred to in the letter dated 24.11.2025 were never supplied to the Petitioner and he was never called upon to show cause on such report. Instead, he is coming to know of such letter dated 24.11.2025 for the first time. Such letter dated 24.11.2025, further clarifies that the housekeeping service pursuant to the work order has been held up till completion of the inquiry process and at present previously working agency i.e. Sumit Security service, Bhubaneswar is providing housekeeping services in all the health institution of district. 14. On careful analysis of the factual background of the present case, further on a careful reading of letter dated 24.11.2025, this Court is convinced that no opportunity of hearing was ever provided to the Petitioner, at least, such fact is not borne from the record. It was only at the last stage of hearing of the present application that an instruction dated 24.11.2025 has been furnished by the office of CDM & PHO, Malkangiri stating therein that the Collector, Malkangiri had provided opportunity to the Petitioner before the work order was withdrawn. In view of the aforesaid factual scenario, this Court has enough reasons to come to a conclusion that the Petitioner in this case has not been provided with an opportunity of hearing. As such, the principle of natural justice has been violated. 15. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court disposes of the present writ application with a direction to the Opposite Party No.4 i.e. Collector-District Magistrate, Malkangiri to provide the reports, if any against the present Petitioner, as has been referred to in letter Page 9 of 10. dated 24.11.2025, within a week from the date of production of a copies of today’s order. Thereafter, the Petitioner shall file his reply within a week thereafter. The Opposite Party No.4, after considering the reports as well as the show cause reply submitted by the Petitioner and providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, shall take a final decision within a period of fifteen days thereafter by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The interim arrangement made with regard to providing housekeeping services shall continue for a period of four weeks from today. While considering the complaint against the Petitioner the Opposite party No.4 shall take into consideration the fact that the complaint lodged against the Petitioner by one Sumanta Kumar Swain, Advocate has already been withdrawn and such fact has been intimated to the Opposite Party No.4 by Mission Director, NHM, vide letter dated 07.07.2025 at Annexure-11 to W.P.(C) No.21265 of 2025. The final decision be intimated to the Petitioner forthwith. In view of the aforesaid conclusion of this Court, the decision vide letter dated 12.08.2025 at Annexure-13 in W.P.(C) No.22997 of 2025 is hereby set aside. 16. With the aforesaid observations and directions the Writ Applications stand disposed of. Rubi ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Page 10 of 10. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 02-Dec-2025 13:34:53