Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha

1. Non-disbursal of amount recommended for release of price escalation, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶11

2. Mr. Prabodha Chandra Nayak, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that having executed the work of construction of Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya, Dunguripali in the district of Subarnapur during the year 2018-19, being declared successful in the tender, executed agreement to commence the work on 11.02.2019 and complete the same by 10.05.2020. Being restrained by the Department pursuant to order of status quo passed in W.P. (C) No.8239 of 2018 due to certain land dispute over which the construction was to be made, the work could not progress since 14.05.2018. However, after vacation of order of status quo vide order dated 23.03.2021 in W.P. (C) No.8239 of 2018, the Department allowed the petitioner to continue with the work.

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

3. The Chief Engineer- cum -Additional Secretary Works Department, Odisha approved the extension of time invoking Para 3.5.5 (V) of the Odisha Public Works Department Code, Volume-I by recording the following: “…..without levy of compensation for delay, without any monetary compensation, without any financial benefit, without any liability to department but with benefit of price escalation for the extended period .”

¶14

4. The petitioner submitted the escalation bill dated 20.06.2024 to the authority concerned which was approved by the Chief Engineer, Balangir (R & B) Circle, Balangir (opposite party No.4) vide letter No.2124 dated 20.07.2024 (Annexure-1). He brought to our notice the following factual position as reflected in the said letter of the Superintending Engineer, Sonepur (R&B), Division Sonepur (opposite party No.5).

¶15

“The correctness of escalation bill shall be checked and ensured by the Divisional Accounts Officer and the Superintending Engineer before making any payment.”

¶16

5. It is alleged by Mr. Prabodh Chandra Nayak, learned Advocate that though the letter was forwarded for due verification and release of the amount representing escalation price by the Superintending Engineer in the month of July, 2024, as yet the authority has not done the needful by releasing the amount. Hence, this writ petition.

¶17

6. Mr. Debasis Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate does not dispute issue of letter No.2124 dated 20.07.2024 by the Chief Engineer, Balangir (R&B) Circle, Balangir (opposite

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

party No.4) to the Superintending Engineer, Sonepur (R&B) Division, Sonepur (opposite party No.5).

¶20

7. Having perused the record.

¶21

8. Undisputed fact remains that the petitioner has completed construction of Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya, Dunguripali in the district of Subarnapur within the extended period. Owing to certain intervening circumstances apparently beyond the control of the petitioner, such extension of time to complete the work was accorded. Under such premise, since the competent authority having appreciated the unenviable circumstance extended period to complete the work, it would not be appropriate for him to deny the claim for price escalation. Moreover, it emanates from letter dated 20.07.2024 issued by the Chief Engineer, Balangir (R&B) Circle, Balangir addressed to the Superintending Engineer (R&B) Division, Sonepur showing extension of period to complete the work that for the delay in accomplishing work it cannot be attributed to the petitioner-contractor.

¶22

9. The difficulty faced by the petitioner being perceived, this Court feels it apposite to direct the Superintending Engineer (R&B) Division, Sonepur (opposite party No.5) to carry out the instructions as imparted to him by the Chief Engineer, Balangir (R&B) Circle, Balangir (opposite party No.4) vide letter No.2124 dated 20.07.2024 (Annexure-1), within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶23