M/S.Shakti Nursery, Cuttack Vs the Govt. of Odisha Panchayati Raj and D.W.Dept.,Bhubaneswar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.10791 of 2026

¶2

M/s. Shakti Nursery, … Petitioner represented through its proprietor, Sanat Kumar Maharana

¶3

Mr. A. Das, Sr. Advocate Mr. A. K. Pal, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

1. The Govt. Of Odisha …. Opposite Parties Panchayati Raj & D.W. Department represented through its commissioner-cumsecretary

¶6

2. Collector-cum-DPCs, MGNREGS., Bhadrak 3. Assistant Director of Soil Conservative, Bhadrak

¶7

4. Director, Soil Conservation, Bhubaneswar

¶8

5. Director, Special Projects, PR & DW Department, Bhubaneswar

¶9

Mr. P. K. Ray, AGA Ms. J. R. Tripathy, Advocate (for O.P. No.2)

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

¶11

Order No.

¶12

01.07.2026

¶13

03. 1. Heard learned Senior counsel, Mr. A. Das, for the Petitioner along with Mr. A. K. Pal, learned

¶14

Page 1 of 9

¶15

Assisting Counsel, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ray, AGA as well as learned Special Counsel, Ms. Tripathy.

¶16

This writ application has been filed by the Petitioner-Supplier under the MGNREGA Scheme.

¶17

For convenience of reference, the relief as sought for is extracted hereunder:-

¶18

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue rule nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why:

¶19

The outstanding amount of Rs.24,54,584/- as per tax invoices under annexure-3 series shall not be released in favor of the petitioner for supply of QPM & FYM for plantation activity under MGNREGA for the year 2024-25 as per supply order under annexure 1& 2 ;

¶20

The OP No. 2 & 3 shall not be directed to clear the bill raised by the petitioner by disposing application dtd. 06.10.2025 under Annexure-4 within a stipulated period keeping in view the Govt. instruction issued vide letter No. 4239 dtd. 11.02.2026 under annexure-5 ;

¶21

If the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the Rule may be made absolute;

¶22

And pass any other order/orders as would be deem fit and proper;

¶23

Page 2 of 9

¶24

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

¶25

Since the nature of the grievance is primarily related to non-payment for supplying of FYM and QPM for plantation activity under the MGNREGA for the financial Year 2024-25, while directing instructions to be submitted by the learned counsel for the State, this Court directed that pendency shall not be a bar for redressal of the Petitioner’s grievance.

¶26

During the course of today’s deliberation, learned instructing counsel of the learned Senior counsel, Mr. Pal, has placed on record by way of memo enclosing thereto letters dated 19.05.2026 of the Assistant Director of Soil Conservation, Bhadrak, addressed to the Collector-cum-DPCs, MGNREGS., Bhadrak and the consequential follow up action which is evident from the letter of the Collector from DPC dated 30.05.2026 addressed to the Director Soil Conservative, Bhadrak.

¶27

The same are taken on record and shall be treated as part of this order.

¶28

While the Assistant Director of Soil Conservation, Bhadrak after noting down the contentions of the Petitioner in his correspondence

¶29

Page 3 of 9

¶30

address to the Collector-cum-DPCs, MGNREGS., Bhadrak proposing the following:-

¶31

“Therefore, it is proposed that:

¶32

The case may be considered for ex-post facto administrative sanction by the competent authority

¶33

Necessary permission may be accorded for regularization of the work

¶34

Settlement of admissible dues, particularly the material component, may be allowed based on verification

¶35

This is submitted for favour of kind

¶36

information and necessary orders.”

¶37

5A. The Collector vide his communication dated 30.05.2026 has referred the matter to the Director, Soil Conservation, Bhadrak, as well as the Director, Special Projects, PR and DW Department.

¶38

On a bare perusal of the communication dated 19.05.2026 of the office of the Assistant Director of Soil Conservation, Bhadrak, it is seen that ParagraphD of the said letter deals with the issue relating to payment as claimed by Petitioner.

¶39

For convenience of reference, the said paragraph is extracted hereunder:-

¶40

Page 4 of 9

¶41

“ d) Why payment is unable to be resolved:

¶42

Out of the total plantation works, muster rolls for only a part of the projects could be generated during September to December 2024. As a result, labour components could not be recorded and corresponding material consumption could not be reflected in MIS. Further, no labour payment has been made in respect of those projects. As per MGNREGA guidelines, material payment cannot ordinarily be processed without corresponding labour component and duly generated muster rolls. In addition, during transfer of charges, the pending issue relating to plantation material payment corresponding labour component and duly generated muster rolls. In addition, 2024-25 and due to transfer of multiple incumbencies, the issue remained unresolved. was not properly recorded, and multiple incumbencies took place in the office in FY and court notice and the matter is presently sub judice before the Hon'ble High The present incumbent came to know about the matter only after receipt of grievances Court.

¶43

Further, as per the instructions issued by the then Principal Secretary, DA & FE, Government of Odisha, and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) circulated by the Directorate of Soil Conservation & Watershed Development, all projects under MGNREGA

¶44

Page 5 of 9

¶45

are required to be approved by the Director with the knowledge of the Principal Secretary prior to execution. The said instructions also stipulate that labour payment relating to plantation works is to be completed within the same financial year. However, in the present case, no labour payment has been made in respect of the remaining plantation works.

¶46

Moreover, as per available record, the plantation materials were distributed by block-level officials to beneficiaries without proper consumption/accounting through Moreover, as per available records, the plantation materials were distributed by block-generated muster rolls and MIS procedure, which is not in conformity with prescribed MGNREGA guidelines. Therefore, at this stage, it is not possible for the present incumbent to reflect/regularize the consumption of materials by generating fresh muster rolls retrospectively. Accordingly, material payment cannot ordinarily be processed without corresponding labour component and duly generated muster rolls.

¶47

Therefore, the works in question pertain to the financial year 2024-25, and due to the lapse of time and closure of the financial period, certain technical and procedural constraints have arisen in processing the payments through the regular system and there is no deliberate intention on the part of the present incumbent to withhold

¶48

Page 6 of 9

¶49

payments, and the delay is procedural/administrative in nature.”

¶50

It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Das for the Petitioner that all the materials are already there before the authorities and since primarily there is no dispute regarding the issuance of the work order, delivery and such delivery being received by Soil Conservation staff as it evident from the letter dated 19.05.2026, direction can be issued for release of the payment.

¶51

Per contra learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ray, AGA and learned Special Counsel, Ms. Tripathy oppose such submissions and state that since the Director, Soil Conservation, Bhadrak and Director, Special Projects, PR and DW Department are in seisin of the matter, entertaining the present writ petition would be premature.

¶52

Considering the rival submission and in the backdrop of the memo which is taken on record, this Court is of the considered view that interest of justice would be subserved, if the Director, Soil Conservation, Bhadrak and Director, Special Projects, PR and DW Department take a decision consequential to the communication received from the Collector and adverted to hereinabove within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order along with copy

¶53

Page 7 of 9

¶54

of the writ petition and the memo which is also part of this record.

¶55

Taking into account the nature of the competing claims, it is directed that an opportunity of hearing shall be provided to the authorised representative of the Petitioner and he shall also be given the scope to clarify relating to the issue as highlighted in Paragraph-D of the communication of the Assistant Director of Soil Conservation, Bhadrak on the Letter No.345 dated 19.05.2026 adverted to hereinabove.

¶56

It is needless to state that this Court has not expressed any views the competing claim of the Petitioner and hopes that the matter shall be resolved without forcing the Petitioner to litigate further. 12. Taking into account the submission made and the memo filed by the learned Senior Counsel with a prayer for impleading the Director, Soil Conservation, Bhadrak as well as Director, Special Projects, PR and DW Department as Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 is taken on record and allowed. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to file a consolidated cause title by tomorrow (02.07.2026).

¶57

Page 8 of 9

¶58