SIBU KANUNGO Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a contractor, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dtd. 12/1/2023 under Annexure-7, by which the Executive Engineer, Nayagrah (R&B) Division, Nayagarh, in pursuance of the approval of rescission of contract vide letter no.2198 dtd. 15/11/2022 of the Chief Construction Engineer, Khurdha (P&B) Circle, Khurdha, has rescinded the contract agreement no.223P1/2018-19 for the work 'Improvement to Sadar Police Station to Khetribarpur Khandugaon RD road from 0/0 km to 2/430 km for the year 2017-18' as per Clause-2(i) of P1 agreement with levy of penalty @ 20% of the value of leftover work to be realized from the petitioner-contractor.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the Chief Construction Engineer, Khurdha (R&B) Circle, Khurdha-opposite party no-3 invited tender for the work 'Improvement to Sadar Police Station to Khetribarpur Khandugaon RD Road of Ward No-6 from 0/0 to 2/430 km vide Bid Identification No.SE/Khurdha (R&B) Circle-02/2018-19'. Pursuant to such tender call notice, the petitioner participated in the bid and came out successful. Consequently, on 17/9/2018, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and opposite party no. 4, vide P1 Agreement No- 223-P1/2018-19.

(3.) Mr. Milan Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr. S.R. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned letter dtd. 12/1/2023 vide Annexure-7, which has been issued in rescinding the contract, is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law and violates the principles of natural justice as the petitioner has never been served with a notice to show cause and he has not been given opportunity of hearing before the order impugned was passed. He further contended that as per the agreement, which was executed on 17/9/2018, the work could not be executed, as the authorities proposed to revise the work. As such, the revised estimate was prepared and finalised on 4/3/2022 and, thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to start the work, as the scope of work was completely changed. He further contended that in one hand the opposite parties delayed the finalization and approval of revised work/estimate by three years and on the other hand in an arbitrary and most unfair manner rescinded the work granted in favour of the petitioner by attributing the delay to him in execution of the same. He, therefore, contended that the actions of the opposite parties are per se unfair, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, abridges the legitimate expectation and also infringes the statutory and fundamental rights of the petitioner as guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, seeks for interference of this Court.