JAGABANDHU ENTERPRISERS Vs. CENTRAL ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the legality and validity of Annexure 13, i.e., the order dated 30.8.2001 passed by the Chief Executive Officer of Central Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. (in short 'the CESCO') in cancelling the work orders placed with the petitioner for supply of materials for diversion of 33 K.V. lines on 132 K.V. D/C. towers (Annexure 4) and for diversion of 33 K.V. Double Circuit line on 132 K.V. Double Circuit Towers at Jagatpur due to widening of N.H. No. 5 (Annexure 5) and directing recovery of the amount advanced from the petitioner by way of encashment of its bank guarantee, as well as Annexure 12, i.e., the order dated 31.8.2001 passed by the Executive Engineer, Cuttack Electrical Division,Cuttack of CESCO, pursuant to the order in Annexure 13. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the opposite parties to allow it to complete the works under the work orders vide Annexures 4 and 5.

(2.) THE petitioner in the writ petition has stated that it is a partnership firm and is a licensed electrical contractor. It undertakes execution of various electrical, civil and maintenance works under Public Sector Undertakings and various Departments of the Government. It has been empanelled as a contractor on rate contract basis for erection and commissioning of 33 K.V. and 220 K.V. transmission lines and sub stations.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, there was no rhyme or reason nor was there any fault or wrong on the part of it to cancel the work orders issued in its favour and to recover the amount advanced in connection with the work in question by encashing the bank guarantee furnished in favour of CESCO. Further, the petitioner has never defaulted in execution of the work and took all reasonable steps for completion of the work considering the urgency involved in thesame. The petitioner has taken all steps and has also spent a huge amount in order to execute the work, cancellation of which would prejudice the petitioner and it would suffer heavy loss which is irreparable.