Disposed

M/S Aditya Enterpriser, Cuttack v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Dec 2025WP(C)/2234/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A mechanical contractor completed check dam work under an agreement, obtained a work completion certificate and fund allotment, but payment was withheld after a belated joint inspection alleged incomplete or defective work. The court held the objection was an afterthought and directed release of payment within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Opposite parties directed to pay petitioner's dues per Annexure-3 allotment letter dated 12.04.2023 within four weeks.

M/S Aditya Enterpriser, Cuttack Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2234 of 2025

¶2

M/s. Aditya Enterpriser, Cuttack …. Petitioner

¶3

Mr. Rudra Narayan Parija, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties

¶6

Mr. Debashis Tripathy, Addl. Government Advocate

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 10.12.2025

¶10

Order No.

¶11

08.

¶12

1. A writ of mandamus to the Superintending Engineer (Mechanical Division), Bhubaneswar (opposite party No.5) is sought for to release the dues as allotted in favour of the petitioner in respect of execution of work, viz. “Fabrications, Supply, transportation and erection of check dam of Tanara over Tanarpata DC under Kendrapara District under Drainage Division, Kendrapara” .

¶13

2. Facts adumbrated in the writ petition reveals that the petitioner, a Mechanical Contractor, being entrusted to execute the work aforesaid vide Agreement No.57 P1/2022-23, completed it on 23.06.2022, within the stipulated period. The Assistant Engineer (Drainage) Sub-Division-I, Kendrapara issued work completion certificate in Form-N having taken over the delivery of possession of the aforesaid work. A site inspection was made by the Superintending Engineer (Mechanical Division), Bhubaneswar with technical staff. Having found the work so

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

executed satisfactory by letter dated 12.04.2023 (Annexure-3), addressed to the Chief Engineer, Drainage, Cuttack, the Superintending Engineer (Mechanical Division), Bhubaneswar sought for grant/allotment of funds through iOTMS.

¶16

2.1. The Chief Engineer, Drainage, Cuttack issued allotment through iOTMS for immediate payment by letter dated 28.03.2024 issued to the Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Division, Bhubaneswar. The Superintending Engineer, Drainage Division, Kendrapara by letter dated 21.07.2023 intimated the Chief Engineer, Drainage, Cuttack with regard to completion of work and sought for allotment of funds through iOTMS. Even though steps were taken by the higher authorities for release of payment in favour of the petitioner, the Superintending Engineer sat over the matter and has not yet released the amount due to the petitioner though funds have been allotted for disbursal. Hence, this writ petition.

¶17

3. Heard Mr. Rudra Narayan Parija, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Debashis Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the opposite partiesState.

¶18

4. Mr. Debashis Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate, referring to Paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties, submitted that the Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Division vide letter dated 28.03.2024 addressed to the Chief Engineer, Drainage, Cuttack instructed to surrender part of the allotted fund in favour of the petitioner. The said Superintending Engineer also communicated by letter dated 30.03.2024 addressed to the petitioner indicating

¶19

Page 2 of 6

¶20

that “the works have not been executed as per the provision and specification in the agreements”. It is revealed therefrom that such fact emanates from the report submitted during the joint inspection of the work on 28.03.2024.

¶21

4.1. It is submitted that the petitioner was directed to rectify the work, and, thereafter, the amount can be released in his favour. Since the intimations issued to the petitioner was not attended to, the learned Addl. Government Advocate urged not to allow the writ petition.

¶22

5. Perused the record.

¶23

6. A complete satisfaction of the Superintending Engineer with respect to execution of work under agreement as referred to above is evident from letter dated 12.04.2023. Having issued “Work Completion Certificate” in Form N (Annexure-2), the Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Division in the said Letter dated 12.04.2023 sought for allotment of funds for disbursal to the petitioner, which being considered the Chief Engineer, Drainage, Cuttack allotted required funds in iOTMS. As it appears, though the work was stated to be completed and the accomplished work was taken over by the Assistant Engineer (Civil), Drainage, Sub-Division No.1, Kendrapara from the petitioner, around one year thereafter, an objection has been raised by the Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Division vide Letter dated 28.03.2024 intimated the Chief Engineer, Drainage that certain works remained incomplete.

¶24

6.1. The stand of opposite parties at paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit that a joint inspection was undertaken on 28.03.2024 wherefrom the non-execution of work could be

¶25

Page 3 of 6

¶26

noticed is inconceivable. It is apparent from the Letter dated 30.03.2024 (Annexure-D/5 of the counter affidavit) addressed to the petitioner by the Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Division, which the petitioner in her rejoinder affidavit disputes to have received, that the said authority is not sure about whether there was non-execution of part of the work or was there defective work. The tenor of instruction imparted to the petitioner seems to be to rectify the work within fifteen days. It is one thing to say that “the works have not been executed” and it is another to say that “rectification of both the works”. As it appears from the record and the contents of the counter affidavit vis-à-vis the evidence attached to the writ petition evinces the fact that after issue of completion certificate (Annexure-2) in the year 2023 and after issue of letter of allotment regarding release of funds for the mechanical work executed by the petitioner, the joint inspection being conducted nearly after one year wherefrom defects or nonexecution could be traced out is ex facie a fiat of afterthought calculated to thwart making payment of dues to her.

¶27

6.2. In the counter affidavit at paragraph-9, a stand has been taken by the opposite parties that the petitioner was directed “to rectify the work within 15 days and the payment will be processed following rectification, subject to the receipt of funds from the Chief Engineer, Drainage, Cuttack.”. The very sentence indicates that the work is completed but required repairs and/or maintenance. Thus, it is not their case that the work was “not completed”.

¶28

6.3. It is further noticed from the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner that at no point of time, it received the letter dated

¶29

Page 4 of 6

¶30

30.03.2024 stated to have been issued by the Superintending Engineer instructing him to rectify the defect in the works executed as pointed out by the joint inspection report.

¶31

6.4. Thus being the material on record, the joint inspection was conducted nearly one year after the issue of “Works Completion Certificate” (Annexure-2) and taking over the works being accomplished, the objection of the Superintending Engineer cannot be sustained. No material is placed by the learned Additional Government Advocate to counter the denial of the petitioner to have received letter instructing it to rectify the works. Such contention off the petitioner is corroborated by the statement of the opposite parties in the counter affidavit that letter dated 24.04.2024 communicated to the petitioner by registered letter, returned with remark “insufficient address”. There is no evidence placed on record to substantiate that effective step has been taken by the opposite parties to bring such fact to the notice of the petitioner, but unilateral decision was taken by the opposite parties not to utilize the funds.

¶32

7. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the action of the opposite parties in not releasing the funds is tainted with whims and fancies. Hence, this Court directs the opposite parties to make payment to the petitioner as disclosed in letter bearing No. SEMDB-EST (CASH)/2022-23/1002 dated 12.04.2023 vide Annexure-3 in connection with Agreement No.57 P1 2021-23 on the basis of “Work Completion Report” in Form-N, whereby the completed work was taken over by the authority in the Drainage Sub-Division No.1, Kendrapara from the petitioner. It is further directed that the payment shall be made by the opposite parties to

¶33

Page 5 of 6

¶34

the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶35

8. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ petition along with all pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶36

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶37

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶38

Bichi

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 12-Dec-2025 16:38:58

¶41

Page 6 of 6

M/S Aditya Enterpriser, Cuttack v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Aditya Enterpriser, Cuttack v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Ch.Satpathy Vs State and Ors.

M/S Gayanaranjan Das, Jajpur Vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Jajpur

M/S. Laxmidhar Mohanty, Jagatsinghpur Vs Commissioner of Ct and Gst, Cuttack

Prasanna Kumar Nayak Vs State of Orissa

Abha Engineering and Construction, Jagatsinghpur Vs State of Odisha

Shantilata Jena Vs State of Odisha