A writ petition for recovery of admitted amounts is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, provided there are no complex factual disputes.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. The seminal point involved in the instant writ petition revolves around the issue whether the writ Court can direct the authorities to refund the amount of money withheld without any justifiable reasons.

2. At the very outset, we must record that the principal and primary relief claimed in the writ petition is the recovery of an amount withheld by the respondent authorities not as an ancillary relief coupled with the other substantive reliefs.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts emerged from the instant writ petition needs recapitulation in order to determine the points as indicated hereinabove.

3.1 Undeniably, the writ petitioner is registered as a B-Class contractor with the Public Works Department in the State of Odisha and participated in the tender floated for “excavation & construction of Saharpada Minor, Balabhadrapur Minor and Tail Minor off-taking from RD 23805m to RD 25205m of left Main Distributary including structure of Deo irrigation project”. The petitioner after having adjudged successful bidder was awarded a contract and an agreement in this regard was also entered into by and between the parties. Undeniably, the project commenced on 10.01.2022 and the petitioner perceived several difficulties and obstacles because of frequent deviation made to the approved plan, which resulted into a delay in completion of the project work and the same, according to the petitioner, was beyond his conceivable imagination. Yet the petitioner continued to execute the work as per the instructions given by the authorities from time to time and also sought for an extension of the period for completion of the said project, which appears to have been granted by the authorities. Despite the work assigned to the petitioner in terms of the tender, additional and extra work was also imposed upon the petitioner by the authority, which was also executed. Apart from the aforementioned hurdles having created in timely execution of the construction work, the delay was also attributed to the dispute raised by several persons claiming their rights in respect of the lands over which such construction was to be undertaken, which includes the felling of the trees and clearance of dense forest, which requires the permission from the competent authority. The petitioner submitted the R/A bills from time to time after execution of the work, which was paid after retaining certain amount in contemplation of a final decision to be taken by the authority after proper verification and scrutiny to be made in this regard. The 9^th and 10^th R/A bills appear to have been withheld partially despite the completion certificate having issued by the authority and for such action of the authorities which according to the petitioner is irrational and unreasonable, the instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“(i) To Admit and allow the writ petition by calling the records from the opp. Parties in connection with engineering contract work undertaken for Excavation and construction of Saharpada minor, Balabhadrapur minor and tail minor off-taking from RD 23805m to RD 25205m of left main distributary including structure of DEO irrigation project.

(ii) To issue rule NISI directing to the O.P.s, to file show cause, if the O.P. fail file show cause or file insufficient cause then the rule may be made absolute.

(iii) To issue writ of mandamus, or any other writ of like nature, directing to O.P.-1 to 5, to pay the withheld amount 26,80,000/-, security money 26,00,000/- and ini