The High Court of Orissa dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a contractor's representation. The principal secretary held that work delays were due to the contractor's lapses. The court found the reasoning adequate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 11869 of 2024
Laxmidhar Padhi
…. Petitioner
Mr. Prabodha Chandra Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties Mr. P.P. Mohanty, Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No.
07.10.2024
This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
Page 1 of 4
over work for the Package No.OR-02-492/PMGSY-III, based on the approval of the Chief Engineer.
4. In course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already made representation before Opposite Party No.1 vide Annexure-10, and the same may be directed to be disposed of within a stipulated time, to which learned Counsel for the State has no objection.
5. As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the Writ Petition directing Opposite Party No.1 to consider and dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-10 and pass appropriate order as early as possible within a period of three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.”
Page 2 of 4
18.04.2024 was passed. He has accordingly argued that if granted further time, the petitioner is ready to execute the work within a period of six months. He has further submitted that for the same work, the opposite parties have floated a fresh tender and as per the fresh tender notice, the work is to be executed within nine calendar months. In such view of the matter, Mr. Nayak contends that if the opposite parties decide not to proceed with the tender process and allow the petitioner to complete the work, it will be in the public interest also.
Page 3 of 4
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice
(Savitri Ratho) Judge
S. Behera
Signature Not Verified
Page 4 of 4
Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Oct-2024 15:28:58
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Principal Secretary acted without due reasoning or *mala fides* in rejecting the petitioner's representation regarding work execution delays and refusing time extension.
Laxmidhar Padhi
State of Odisha
Savitri Ratho
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
