Sadhu Charan Parida Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶19

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶20

“It is therefore, most humbly prayed that, Hon'ble Court may be pleased to

¶21

a) Admit this Writ Petition, call for records, and after hearing the parties, be pleased to issue a Writ(s), order(s), direction(s) in the nature of Mandamus, directing the O.P. No.2 (Collector, Balasore) to re-hear the petitioner's representation / legitimate claim afresh by

¶22

Page 1 of 4.

¶23

verifying representations dated 07.01.2020 and time petition dated 04.12.2023 with due consideration of all facts and circumstances, including the petitioner's medical condition and the good faith execution of the work;

¶24

b) Further direct the Opposite Party 2 (Collector, Balasore) to ensure that rightful payment for the work duly executed and verified, amounting to Rs.1,46,500.00, is disbursed in favour of the petitioner against the work done within a stipulated period as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper.

¶25

And further pray that Hon'ble Court may pass any order/order(s), writ/writ(s), direction/direction(s) deemed fit and proper to this case.”

¶26

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner was issued with a work order for construction work of a boundary wall at Debendrapur Nodal U.P. School approved by the Panchayat Samitee in its meeting on 06.09.2019. The estimate submitted was approved for Rs.1,46,500/-. Accordingly, the work order was issued to the GPTA of the Panchayat on 27.11.2019. Thereafter, the work was executed by the Petitioner. Finally, the Petitioner submitted his bill for payment of his dues. Since the payment of the Petitioner has not cleared, the Petitioner approached the authorities by filing a representation on 07.01.2020. Challenging the inaction of the Opposite Parties the Petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.32114 of 2020. This Court while disposing the writ petition on 11.01.2021, directed the BDO, Bahanaga to consider the representation of the Petitioner.

¶27

Page 2 of 4.

¶28

Despite order passed by this Court on 11.01.2021 in the earlier writ petition, the grievance of the Petitioner was not redressed. As a result, the Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing a contempt application bearing CONTC No.8751 of 2023. In the contempt application this Court was informed by the learned counsel for the State on the basis of a letter by the B.D.O., Bahanaga dated 13.12.2022 and the contemnor took a plea that the Petitioner was provided with an opportunity for redressal of his grievance, however, the Petitioner did not appear on the fixed date and time.

¶29

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that till date the Petitioner has not been paid his legitimate dues even though he has carried out construction pursuant to the work order. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has once again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although she has no specific instruction in this matter, however, an opportunity was earlier provided to the Petitioner for redressal of his grievance. However, the Petitioner did not appear before the competent authority. On such ground, learned counsel for the State further contended that in the event this Court directs the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner in accordance with law and within a stipulated period of time, she will have no objection to the same.

¶31

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition

¶32

Page 3 of 4.

¶33

by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a detailed representation within two weeks from today along with all supporting documents. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall consider the case of the Petitioner and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order along with the representation. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within a week thereafter. It is further made clear that in the event there are no other legal impediment, the Opposite Parties shall do well to pay the balance amount of the Petitioner in the event it is found that he has in fact performed the work as claimed by the Petitioner.

¶34

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶35

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶36

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

¶37

Judge

¶38

S.K. Rout

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Page 4 of 4. Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 08-Aug-2025 17:21:22

Sadhu Charan Parida v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhu Charan Parida v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Orissa Vs Sk.Sarifuddin Ahamed

State of Orissa Vs Sk.Sarifuddin Ahamed

State of Orissa Vs Sk.Sarifuddin Ahamed

M/S. L and T Finance Ltd., Keonjhar Vs State of Odisha

Sashi Bhusan Barik Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Sashikanta Das Vs State of Odisha