Dismissed¶25

M/S. Nirakara Security and Consultancy Service Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack v. Chair Person, Konark Nac, Puri

Orissa HC13 Nov 2024WP(C)/27445/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissed writ petition (W.P.(C) 27445/2024, Orissa HC, 13.11.2024): contractor sought judicial direction to compel Konark NAC to extend one-year manpower supply agreement by another year citing Clauses 3-4; Court held contract clauses create no right to extension and no obligation on NAC - extension purely discretionary; petitioner left free to seek extension on merit.

What did the court decide?

Clauses 3 and 4 of the agreement confer no right upon the petitioner and impose no obligation upon the opposite parties to extend the period of contract; although extension is open to the opposite parties, it is totally at their discretion depending upon their requirements and the petitioner's performance. ¶22

M/S. Nirakara Security and Consultancy Service Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack Vs Chair Person, Konark Nac, Puri — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.27445 of 2024

¶2

M/s. Nirakara Security and Consultancy Service Pvt. Ltd.

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr.Dilip Mishra,.Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1.Chair Person, Konary NAC, Konark 2.Executive Officer, Konark NAC, Konark

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER

¶10

Order No.

¶11

13.11.2024

¶12

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶13

The petitioner is a registered proprietorship firm under the Orissa

¶14

Proprietorship Rules and said to be duly registered in the office of the I.G. Registration, Orissa. An agreement was entered into between Konark NAC, Konark, District Puri and the petitioner on 15.11.2023 for providing different personnels to work at Konark NAC for a period of one year. The said period of one year is going to expire tomorrow (14.11.2024).

¶15

The present writ application has been filed seeking direction to the opposite parties to extend the period of contract for a further period of one year because the petitioner’s performance is satisfactory relying on Clause-3 and Clause-4 of the agreement.

¶16

Clause-3 and Clause-4 of the agreement read thus:

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

“3. That, the agreement executed shall commence from 15th November,

¶19

2023 and Continue initially for 1 year with provision for extension of up to another 1 year on satisfactory performance, unless it is curtailed or terminated by Konark-NAC owing to deficiency of service, sub-standard quality of manpower - deployed, breach of contract etc. or change in requirements.”

¶20

xxx xxx xxx

¶21

“4. That, the agreement shall automatically expire on completion of 1 (one) year unless extended further 1 year based on satisfactory performance.”

¶22

In the Court’s opinion, the aforesaid provisions under the agreement do not confer any right upon the petitioner nor any obligation on the opposite parties to extend the period of contract. Though it is open for the opposite parties to extend the period of contract but this is totally at their discretion depending upon their requirements and the petitioner’s performance.

¶23

For the aforesaid reason, we are not inclined to entertain the prayer made in the writ application/seeking direction to requiring the opposite parties to extend the period of contract. It is however open for the petitioner to convince the opposite parties to extend the period based on its satisfactory performance.

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25