1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.14022 of 2018

Nanda Infra Construction Pvt.

Ltd., Angul

&..

Petitioner

Mr. Kamal Behari Panda, Advocate

Vs.

Chairman-cum-Managing,

Director, Orissa Industrial

Infrastructure Development

Corporation, Bhubaneswar

and Others

&..

Opposite Parties

Mr. P. K. Mohanty, Senior Advocate,

appearing along with P. Mohanty,

Advocate

(O.P. No. 1 to 3)

Mr. P. A. Dash, Advocate

(O.P. No. 4)

Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA

(O.P. No. 5)

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

Mr. JUSTICE S. K. MISHRA

ORDER

28.07.2022

Order No.

9

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Heard Mr. K. B. Panda, learned Counsel for the

Petitioner; Mr. P. K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel

appearing along with Mr. P. Mohanty, learned Counsel for

Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3; Mr. P.A. Dash, learned Counsel

for Opposite Party No. 4 and Mr. P. P. Mohanty, learned

Additional Government Advocate for Opposite Party No. 5.

3.

Though Notice was issued to Opposite Party No. 6,

none appeared on his behalf.

4.

The Petitioner, being a Super-Class Contractor, has

filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the Order dated

12.07.2018 under Annexure-18 issued by the Divisional

Head, Angul Division, rescinding Agreement No. 01-F2/16-

2

17, dated 07.06.2016 as per clause No. III(e) of the

conditions of contract.

5.

Mr. K. B. Panda, learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned Order

dated 12.07.2018 has been passed by the Divisional Head,

Angul Division, without assigning any reason, which is

contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice. More so, it is

contended that as per Clause-III(e) of the conditions of

contract, to rescind the contract of which recession notice in

writing to the Contractor under the hand of the Divisional

Head/Executive Engineer shall be conclusive evidence and

the same has to be signed by such person and as such, though

such rescission of contract order was signed by the

Divisional Head, Angul Division, but the notice of the

rescission of contract has been given by Opposite Party No.

4, who is none else less but a Consultancy Authority vide

Annexure-5 Series dated 15.05.2018. Thereby, incompetent

person has issued notice against the Petitioner to rescind the

contract, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. To

substantiate the case of the Petitioner, he has relied upon the

judgment of this Court in (M/s.) East Coast Constructions

Industries Ltd., Odisha v. State of Odisha and others, 2016

(II) CLR-359.

6.

Mr. P. K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 contended that since the

Petitioner has not completed the work within the time

stipulated in the agreement itself, the Authority has taken

steps for rescinding the contract. It is further contended that

by virtue of interim Order, the Bank Guarantee has been

extended from time to time, but after 01.04.2021, it has not

3

been renewed. Therefore, it is contended that direction may

be given to the Petitioner to renew the Bang Guarantee so

that the Opposite Parties can take necessary steps in

accordance with law.

7.

Mr. P. A. Dash, learned Counsel appearing for

Opposite Party No. 4 contended that Opposite Party No.4

was engaged as Consultant to look after the work undertaken

by the Petitioner and, as such, except the consultant work, it

has not done anything, which will cause prejudice to the

Petitioner.

8.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after

going through the records, it appears that the Opposite Party

No.1 invited bids from the Contractors vide Bid

Identification No.PC-EST-74/2015-16 dated 28.01.2016 for a

sum of Rs. 4873.19 lakh approximately. The work was to be

completed within a period of 12 calender months. In

response to Invitations for Bids, the Petitioner participated

and as such, he was selected to underta