Jitendra Biswal vs State Of Odisha And Others

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client was contractor. The employer by office order dated 11th February, 2019, impugned in the writ petition, closed the contract and imposed penalty of Rs.6,39,188/-allegedly for unfinished work. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in UP Power Transmission Corporation Limited vs. CG Power and Industrial Solutions Limited, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 15, paragraphs 66 to 69 to submit, the writ petition is maintainable. Furthermore, there is no arbitration clause in the contract.

He refers to paragraph 6 in the counter and submits, drawing was changed and extra items required to be executed by his client on rates given by his client but not accepted by the employer. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Addl. Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, petitioner abandoned the work. As such there was necessity to close the contract and it was done as per clause 2(a) in the agreement for the work. Mr.Nayak disputes that there could be closure in terms of said clause.

This Court is inclined to entertain the writ petition on strength of UP Power transmission Corporation Limited (supra) for limited relief to petitioner to enable him to approach civil Court with the dispute and obtain interim restraint order, if granted therein. This is because time, made essence of contract by the employer and thereafter on having changed the scope of work and requiring extra items cannot be maintained. As such imposition of penalty must be looked into by going into the rival contentions, on facts. This, the civil Court will be able to do.

Opposite parties are restrained from giving effect to impugned office order for a period of four weeks from date. Petitioner will be at liberty, within that time, to approach civil Court and obtain relief as may be granted by it.

The writ petition is disposed of.

.............................