Afr M/S. Famous Security Services vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... Opp. ... on 13 October, 2020
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.