Page 1 of 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P (C) No. 2334 of 2023

M/s. Rajlaxmi Construction Ltd.,

Cuttack

…..

Petitioner

Mr. P.C. Nayak, Adv.

Vs.

State of Odisha and others

…..

Opposite Parties

Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

MR. JUSTICE B.P. SATAPATHY

ORDER

27.01.2023

Order No.

01.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Heard Mr. P.C. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl.

Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite

parties.

3.

Mr. P.C. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner contended that this matter is covered by the order

dated 17.08.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 20632

of 2022. Copy of the said having been served on learned State

Counsel in Court today and he acknowledged the same.

Therefore, on the agreement of the parties, this order is being

passed.

4.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to

quash the order dated 06.03.2018 under Annexure-1 and in

imposition of penalty @ 0.50% of the agreement value and

not approving the price escalation amount for the extended

period and further to issue direction to the opposite parties to

release the price escalation amount in terms of agreement and

Page 2 of 6

in terms of the judgment of this court in Raghunath Sahu v.

State of Odisha, AIR 2022 Orissa 37 for the work

“Construction of H.L. Bridge over river Koel and approaches

at Jhirpani in the district of Sundargarh under NABARD

Assistance RIDF-XIII.

5.

Mr. P.C. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner contended that imposition of penalty and rejection

of claim of the petitioner by the authority vide order dated

06.03.2018 under Annexures-1 cannot sustain in the eye of

law, in view of the fact that no opportunity of hearing was

given to the petitioner. Had the opportunity been given, the

petitioner would have brought to the notice of the authority

with regard to the judgment rendered by this Court in

Raghunath Sahu (supra). Thereby, gross illegality and

irregularity has been committed by the authority in passing

the order impugned, which is liable to be quashed.

6.

Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate

appearing for the State-Opposite Parties contended that since this

question has already been decided by this Court in Raghunath

Sahu (supra), while considering the case of the Petitioner, the

Authority could have considered the same and passed appropriate

order in accordance with law. As the said benefit has not been

given to the Petitioner, the Order so passed by the Authority

cannot have any justification.

7.

Though the matter was listed under the heading ‘fresh

admission’, but with the consent of learned counsel for the

parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of

Page 3 of 6

admission.

8.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after

going through the records, it appears that similar matter had

come up for consideration before this court in Raghunath

Sahu (supra) and this Court in paragraphs-20, 21, 22 and 25

held as follows:

“20. Therefore, taking into consideration the meaning

attached to the word ‘escalation’, as per terms and

conditions of the agreement, the petitioner is entitled to get

escalation cost but not the compensation, for which the

blockage of the escalation benefit has been made. Needless

to say, an ‘undertaking’ is nothing but a standard form,

which every contractor has to sign and submit to the effect

that he shall not claim for compensation for delay in work

and extend the period of work. This is submitted whenever

extension of time is granted for completion of work or else

extension will not be granted. This document is signed,

without adjudicating the merits of the claim of the

petitioner, and is done under duress or else the contract

would be liable to be terminated with penalty, even though

the petitioner may not