IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.17926 of 2024 Ramesh Chandra Mallick ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. -

Kananbala Roy Choudhury -versus-

1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Chief Engineer (building) , Odisha Represented By Adv. – 3) Superintending Engineer, Bbsr (r Mr. C.M.Singh, A.S.C.

And B) Division No. Iii, Bbsr

4) Executive Engineer, Bbsr (r And B)

Division No. Iii, Bbsr CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

09.12.2025 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer-

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner who happens to be a contractor was issued with a work order dated 03.07.2020 at Anenxure-1. Thereafter, an agreement was executed. Pursuant to the work order and agreement the Petitioner completed the work assigned to him. The sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ application is that although he has submitted his bills, he has not been paid his admitted dues. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to the letter dated 15.02.2024, Annexure-6 series, stated before this Court that out of a total due of Rs.1,63,47,249/- Petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs.1,05,52,936/-. So far as the balance amount is concerned, the authorities are not releasing the same despite several approaches made by the Petitioner. She further contended that the Petitioner has filed several representations before the authorities demanding the outstanding dues as is due and admissible to the Petitioner. Copies of such representation filed before the Opposite Party No.3 are annexed at Annexure-6 series. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Opposite parties be directed to pay the balance admitted dues, as has been claimed by the Petitioner in his representation under Annexure-6 series within a stipulated period of time.

5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no instruction in the matter, however, it appears that the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.3 for redressal of his grievance by filing several representations. He further contended that in the event there a subsisting dispute with regard to payment of the admitted dues and no final decision has been taken on the representation of the Petitioner, he will have no objection, in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.3 to take a final decision on the representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the materials on record, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the opposite Party No.3 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner by keeping in view Annexures-8 & 9, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a coy of today’s order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. It is further made clear that in the event the authority comes to a conclusion that a part of admitted dues have not been paid to the Petitioner and in the absence of any other legal impediment to the same, necessary steps be taken to disburse the admitted dues of the Petitioner within four weeks thereafter.

7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application is disposed of.

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

Judge Rubi Signature Not Verifi e d Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 10-Dec-2025