Petitioner sought escalation of price in a construction contract. Court observed Superintending Engineer's recommendation was pending approval. Directed Chief Construction Engineer to consider recommendation within four weeks.
Directed Chief Construction Engineer to consider Superintending Engineer's recommendation within four weeks.
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 WP(C) No.24966 of 2025
M/s. D.D. Builders Limited, Kalahandi
… Petitioner
Mr. Sidhant Dwibedi, Advocate -Versus-
State of Odisha and others
… Opposite Parties
Mr. Debashis Tripathy, Additional Government Advocate
CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Order No.
ORDER 03.12.2025
03. 1. Non-disbursal of amount relatable to price escalation has given rise to the filing of this writ petition invoking provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Sri Sidhant Dwibedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to averments made in the writ petition, submitted that the petitioner had been declared lowest successful bidder in the tender for the work namely “Construction of Right Main Extension Canal from RD.2130M to 2610M including structures Lining Works & Service Road” of Upper Indravati Irrigation Project. As per agreement the petitioner was required to commence the work from 26.12.2006 and complete the same by 25.06.2009.
3. However, there was a delay in execution of the work owing to non-availability of land and inaccessibility to the work site during rainy season. This led the petitioner to seek for extension of time to complete the work, which was extended up to 25.06.2010 by the
Page 1 of 5
Chief Engineer, Upper Indravati Irrigation Project, Khatiguda in the district of Nabarangpur vide Office Order dated 09.09.2009. The petitioner, having completed the work within the extended period, claimed for consideration of disbursal of amount because of escalation of prices.
4. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to one of the circulars dated 08.11.2021 that the circular dated 03.04.2007 issued by the Works Department for the above said purpose still holds the field to consider release of escalation prices. Though persistent requests have been made to the Authority concerned, the same is not attended to. With constraint, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition.
5. Heard Sri Sidhant Dwibedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Debashis Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties.
6. Perusal of record shows that the Government of Odisha has been issuing circulars clarifying the position with regard to escalation
Page 2 of 5
prices to be released in favour of the contractors condoning the delay in completion of work owing to certain circumstances which were beyond the control of such contractors.
7. Referring to the following clarification vide Letter No.IIM06/2021/37014/WR dated 15.10.2022 issued by the Department of Water Resources, it is highlighted at the Bar that:
“*** *** ***
| Sl. No. |
Clarification sought for |
Views of Works Department |
|---|---|---|
| i | Clarification on escalation claims prior to 07.07.2012 and copy of circular in force. |
In respect of escalation claims prior to 07.07.2012, the issues may be decided taking into account the directions of Hon’ble Court, if any by the Administrative Department concerned on case-to-case basis based on prevailing circulars in force and after due diligence of the claims. The clause in the agreement executed prior to 07.07.2012 has to be verified and accordingly the claim shall be disposed of. The relevant circular in force at that point of time was Works Department circular bearing No.Codes-8/06- 5608/W dated 03.04.2007. This circular was in force up to 06.07.2012. |
8. On consideration of submission of second and final prices collection statement submitted by the petitioner-contractor, the Superintending Engineer, Upper Indravati Right Canal Division No.II, Junagarh recommended as follows:
“OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER UPPER INDRAVATI RIGHT CANAL DIVISION NO-II
Page 3 of 5
AT/PO JUNAGARH, DIST-KALAHANDI
Lr.No.708/WE Date._________
To
The Chief Construction Engineer, Upper Indravati Irrigation Project,
At/PO.Mukhiguda, Dist:-Kalahandi
Sub:- Submission of 2nd and final price escalation Statement for the work “Construction of Right Extension Main Canal from RD-2130 M to 2610 M including structure, lining works and service road” vide Agreement No-151F2/2006-07.
Ref:-1. Our office Letter No-685, dated-01.07.2025
2. D.D Builders Ltd 09.07.2025
Sir,
In inviting a kind reference to the subject cited above, the above work is awarded to D.D Builders Ltd vide agreement no-151F2/2006-07 for an agreement amount of Rs.9,17,07,583.67/-. The date of commencement and stipulated date of completion of work is dt-26.12.2006 and 25.06.2029 respectively. The EOT has been granted up to 25.06.2010 by Chief Engineer, UIIP, Mukhiguda vide Lr no.432/09-10 dated 09.09.2009. The 2nd and final price escalation statement for the above work amounting to Rs.1,40,80,795.00/- (including GST 18%), has been submitted by D.D. Builders on dated 09.07.2025, received in this division on dated-10.07.2025 is hereby recommended for kind approval .
This is for your kind information and necessary action.
Encl-1. Price escalation calculation sheet
2. EOT Approval Letter
3. Agreement Copy
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-Superintending Engineer, U.I.R.C.D. No.-II, Junagarh”
9. It emanates from the record that the aforesaid recommendation for approval is pending since July, 2025 with the Chief Construction Engineer, Upper Indravati Irrigation Project, which Sri Debashis Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate did not dispute.
Page 4 of 5
10. This Court, having perceived the difficulty of the petitioner and faced with the aforesaid conceded position, felt it prudent to direct Opposite Party No.3-The Chief Construction Engineer, Upper Indrabati Irrigation Project to consider the recommendation of the Superintending Engineer, stated to have been issued vide Letter No.708/WE dated 11.07.2025, within a period of four weeks from the communication of this order.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman) Judge
Aswini
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary in-charge)
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH
COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 05-Dec-2025 19:29:12
Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Chief Construction Engineer should consider the Superintending Engineer's recommendation regarding price escalation claim.
Whether a writ petition must be disposed of with a direction to proceed on administrative recommendation.
M/s. D.D. Builders Limited, Kalahandi
State of Odisha
Chief Construction Engineer, Upper Indravati Irrigation Project
Harish Tandon
M.S. Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
