The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.29636 of 2025 Bhakta Ram Purohit …. Petitioner Mr. Prabodha Chandra Nayak, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ….
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Ms. Suman Pattanayak, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No.
Decision
ORDER 12.11.2025 01. 1. Alleging lethargic attitude in not showing alacrity in finalizing bills by accepting closure proposal of work executed, the petitioner, with constraint, approached this Court for issue of writ of mandamus in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer(s):- “It is therefore prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions in directing opposite party No.2, (Chief Engineer, PMGSY, Rural Works (Odisha) to take final decision/accept closure proposal of the work submitted by opposite party No.4 vide letter No.181 dated 09.01.2025 (under Annexure-4), forwarded by opposite party No.3 vide letter No.101 dated 13.01.2025 (under Annexure-5) for the work i.e. “Construction of Road and CD works under PMGSY Ph-II (Batch-1) Package No.OR-05-357/B-II” Agreement No.22 PMGSY of 2021- lawful admitted dues such as 22 and to release Page 1 of 5 Performance Security, Additional Performance Security and final bill along with 12% interest. And may pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 2. Sri Prabodha Chandra Nayhak, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that “Construction of Road and CD Works under PMGSY Ph-II (Batch-1) Package No.OR-05-357/B-II” was executed and accordingly, as per agreement schedule, the petitioner submitted 13th R.A. Bill/Final Bill & 14th R.A Bill/Final Bill; nevertheless, the opposite parties have not pragmatic approach in releasing the amount in favour of the petitioner. It is put forth that the contractee failed to hand over the land by acquiring private land, which caused certain legal dispute. Even then, the petitioner, with difficulty could execute the work entrusted. Having completed the work, the closure proposal was submitted to the opposite party no.3, Chief Construction Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Bolangir, who in turn, has forwarded such proposal to opposite party no.2, namely, Chief Engineer, PMGSY, Rural Works (Odisha), Bhubaneswar. It is alleged that the opposite party no.2, sitting over the matter, has not yet shown any promptitude in action by accepting such proposal and consequently, disburse the amount legitimately due to be released in favour of the petitioner. 2.1 Sri Probodha Chandra Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to letter No.181 dated Page 2 of 5 09.01.2025 issued by the Superintending Engineer, R.W Division, Bolangir addressed to the Chief Construction Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Bolangir with the following: “In inviting a kind reference to the subject cited abopve, the work”Construction of road and CD works from RD Road to Fatamunda chhak via Manupali, Roth package No.OR-05-357/B-II & under PMGSY Construction of Bridge over Kulari Jore Nallah at 2nd Km on RD Road to Fatamunda Chhak under PMGSY package No.OR05LB 28” was awarded to Sri Bhaktaram Purohit, “Special” class contractor vide agreement No.22 PMGSY of 2021-22. The date of commencement and stipulated date of completion being 04.12.2021 & 03.12.2023 respectively. The road work (OR-05-LB-28), the bridge proper has been completed since 10.06.2023, but approach road of bridge could not be started due to existence of private land. The land owners did not allow for construction of approach road. The private land portion has been demarcated & land schedule has been obtained from Tehsildar, Agalpur vide his office letter No.803 dt.03.05.2023 (Colpy enclosed). It is found from the land schedule that 10nos of plot are coming under approach road alignment for quantum of area 0.65 acre. In this regard, this division office has taken all initiation for direct purchase of private land under RFCTLAR&R Act 2013. But the land looser did not give their consent for process of direct purchase through DCAC. Further, it has been approached through LARRMS & all supporting documents for land acquisition have been submitted to LAO, Collectorate, Bolangir vide letter No.1689 dated 02.03.2024 for further course of action. It is learnt that, the land acquisition process may take longer time. However, the agency has requested vide his letter dated 18.10.2024 for kind reference) to close this contract citing the reasons that (Copy enclosed this office Page 3 of 5 the labour rate & material cost has been increased significantly causing them severe financial difficulties. Hence, the closure proposal for the above work is submitted herewith for kind consideration. And this office may kindly be allowed to take up the balance work of bridge (OR05LB28) soon after completion of land acquisition process. This is for favour of your kind information and necessary action.” 2.2. Such proposal being forwarded by the Chief Construction Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Bolangir to the Chief Engineer (PMGSY) Rural Works, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (Annexure-5), the petitioner raises a grievance that due to slow pace of Government functionary, heavy loss is being ensued to the petitioner. 3. Ms. Suman Pattanayak, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties would concede that if some time is granted, the authority concerned shall take a decision on the recommendation made to him under Annexures-4 and 5. 4. Having heard counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the record, it remains undisputed that citing closure of work, the Superintending Engineer has forwarded the letter to the Chief Construction Engineer, who in turn, has submitted the said proposal to the Chief Engineer (PMGSY). Though it has been submitted in the month of January, 2025, the same has not been attended to by the Chief Engineer (PMGSY). Keeping this writ petition further would not be beneficial to either of the parties. Page 4 of 5 Therefore, we direct opposite party no.2 to take an appropriate decision on the letters dated 09.01.2025 and 13.01.2025 vide Annexures-4 and 5 respectively, within a period of four weeks from the date of furnishing copy of this order and disburse the amount determined in favour of the petitioner forthwith. The decision taken in this regard be communicated to the petitioner immediately. The entire exercise is expected to be concluded within a period of forty- five days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge Aswini Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary in-charge) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Nov-2025 13:32:21 Page 5 of 5