Orissa High Court
M/S. Mdsg Construction Pvt vs State Of Odisha & Others ..... Opposite ... on 21 November, 2022
Bench: B.R. Sarangi, Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 31352 of 2022
&
I.A No.15887 of 2022
M/s. MDSG Construction Pvt., ..... Petitioner
Ltd., Nuapada
Mr.P.C.Nayak, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha & Others ..... Opposite Parties
State Counsel
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
22.11.2022 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
03.
2. Connect with W.P.(C) No.29306 of 2022.
3. Heard Mr. P.C. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the decision making process adopted by opposite party no.4 in approving the closure proposal vide letter no.42228 dated 09.11.2022 under Annexure-11 before expiry of the contract period, i.e., 27.02.2023, and to issue direction to the opposite parties to allow it to complete the balance work, as per the revised work programme under Annexure-9, for the work "Construction of Multi Purpose Hall (MPH) (Urban Sport Complex) at U.N. College, Sore, Sore Municipality District Balasore vide agreement no.1036 P1 of 2021-22 within a stipulated time."
5. Mr. P.C. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner contended Page 1 of 2 that for the work in question, agreement was executed for the period from 28.03.2022 to 27.02.2023. But when the period is subsisting, the order dated 09.11.2022 was passed, by which closure proposal for the work in question was approved. It is contended that no provision has been mentioned in the order of approval for closure proposal nor has it been placed that any condition has been violated, nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner while passing such order. As such, it has only mentioned that the petitioner has not progressed as required to be done by it. If that be so, as per the clause-2(a) of the conditions of the contract, compensation has to be paid for the delayed execution of work. Instead of doing so, the authority passed the order for closure of the work, which is not permissible, without assigning any reason. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Famous Security Services v. State of Odisha, AIR 2021 ORISSA 57.
6. Issue notice to the opposite parties.
7. Six extra copies of the writ petition be served on learned State Counsel appearing for opposite parties no.1 to 6 within three working days enabling him to obtain instructions or file counter affidavit.
8. As an interim measure, it is directed that no third party interest shall be created pursuant to Annexure-11 dated 09.11.2022, till 05.12.2022.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(B. P. SATAPATHY)
Subrat JUDGE
Page 2 of 2