IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2234 of 2025 M/s. Aditya Enterpriser, Cuttack …. Petitioner Mr. Rudra Narayan Parija, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Debashis Tripathy, Addl. Government Advocate CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

10.12.2025 Order No.

08. 1. A writ of mandamus to the Superintending Engineer (Mechanical Division), Bhubaneswar (opposite party No.5) is sought for to release the dues as allotted in favour of the petitioner in respect of execution of work, viz. “Fabrications, Supply, transportation and erection of check dam of Tanara over Tanarpata DC under Kendrapara District under Drainage Division, Kendrapara”.

2. Facts adumbrated in the writ petition reveals that the petitioner, a Mechanical Contractor, being entrusted to execute the work aforesaid vide Agreement No.57 P1/2022-23, completed it on 23.06.2022, within the stipulated period. The Assistant Engineer (Drainage) Sub-Division-I, Kendrapara issued work completion certificate in Form-N having taken over the delivery of possession of the aforesaid work. A site inspection was made by the Superintending Engineer (Mechanical Division), Bhubaneswar with technical staff. Having found the work so executed satisfactory by letter dated 12.04.2023 (Annexure-3), addressed to the Chief Engineer, Drainage, Cuttack, the Superintending Engineer (Mechanical Division), Bhubaneswar sought for grant/allotment of funds through iOTMS.

2.1. The Chief Engineer, Drainage, Cuttack issued allotment through iOTMS for immediate payment by letter dated 28.03.2024 issued to the Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Division, Bhubaneswar. The Superintending Engineer, Drainage Division, Kendrapara by letter dated 21.07.2023 intimated the Chief Engineer, Drainage, Cuttack with regard to completion of work and sought for allotment of funds through iOTMS. Even though steps were taken by the higher authorities for release of payment in favour of the petitioner, the Superintending Engineer sat over the matter and has not yet released the amount due to the petitioner though funds have been allotted for disbursal. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard Mr. Rudra Narayan Parija, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Debashis Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties-

State.

4. Mr. Debashis Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate, referring to Paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties, submitted that the Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Division vide letter dated 28.03.2024 addressed to the Chief Engineer, Drainage, Cuttack instructed to surrender part of the allotted fund in favour of the petitioner. The said Superintending Engineer also communicated by letter dated 30.03.2024 addressed to the petitioner indicating that “the works have not been executed as per the provision and specification in the agreements”. It is revealed therefrom that such fact emanates from the report submitted during the joint inspection of the work on 28.03.2024.

4.1. It is submitted that the petitioner was directed to rectify the work, and, thereafter, the amount can be released in his favour. Since the intimations issued to the petitioner was not attended to, the learned Addl. Government Advocate urged not to allow the writ petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. A complete satisfaction of the Superintending Engineer with respect to execution of work under agreement as referred to above is evident from letter dated 12.04.2023. Having issued “Work Completion Certificate” in Form N (Annexure-2), the Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Division in the said Letter dated 12.04.2023 sought for allotment of funds for disbursal to the petitioner, which being considered the Chief Engineer, Drainage, Cuttack allotted required funds in iOTMS. As it appears, though the work was stated to be completed and the accomplished work was taken over by the Assista