Orissa High Court
Kl Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Odisha And Others on 11 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 14682 of 2023
KL Infrabuild PVT. Ltd., ..... Petitioner
Bolangir
Mr. S.K. Acharya, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMAN
ORDER
11.05.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
01.
2. Heard Mr. S. K. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the
State
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the
order dated 19.08.2022 under Annexure-4 to the extent of levy of penalty
and non-grant price escalation to the petitioner's company.
4. Mr. S.K. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that so far of levy of penalty is concerned, this question has already been
considered by this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agrawal v. State
of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No. 31151 of 2022 disposed of on
24.11.2022. It is further contended that on similar issue one Radheshyam
Agrawal had also approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 14922 of
2019, which was allowed by this Court. Against the order passed by this
Court, the State Government preferred Civil Appeal No. 4934 of 2022.
The apex Court upheld the order passed by this Court in State of Odisha
and others v. Radheshyam Agrawal, 2023 SCC OnLine 331. Therefore,
the claim of penalty @ 0.10 % on the value of work done beyond the
stipulated period of completion cannot be sustained and as such, this writ
petition may be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid orders and the
petitioner is entitled to get the same relief, as has been granted in the
cases of Sanjay Kumar Agrawal and Radheshyam Agrawal (supra), to
which Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing
for the State-opposite parties has raised no objection.
5. So far as grant of price escalation is concerned, Mr. Acharya,
learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this claim is also
covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Raghunath Sahu v.
State of Odisha and others, 2022 SCC OnLine Ori 394:AIR 2022 Ori 37
and, as such, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of price
escalation.
6. Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate
contended that so far as price escalation is concerned, it is open to the
petitioner to approach the authority concerned for grant of such benefit,
which shall be decided keeping in view the ratio decided in the case of
Raghunath Sahu (supra).
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the record, since the question of penalty has already been
reached its finality by the judgment rendered by the apex Court in the
case of Radheshyam Agrawal (supra), therefore, the levy of penalty @
0.10% as has been done in this case, cannot be sustained and the same is
hereby quashed. But so far as price escalation is concerned, it is open to
the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the authority concerned.
8. With that liberty, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Arun (M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
ARUN Digitally signed by
ARUN KUMAR
KUMAR MISHRA
Date: 2023.05.12
MISHRA 16:43:18 +05'30'
