Orissa High Court
Sachin Agrawal vs State Of Odisha & Others on 30 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.34190 of 2023
Sachin Agrawal ..... Petitioner
Mr. Subham Agrawal, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha & Others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
30.10.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
01.
2. Heard Mr. S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate
appearing for the State-Opposite Parties.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash
the order dated 31.03.2022 under Annexure-3 to the extent of levy
of penalty and non-grant price escalation to the Petitioner.
4. Mr. S. Agrawal 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 Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the State-opposite parties has raised no objection.
5. So far as grant of price escalation is concerned, Mr.
Agrawal, 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 Addl. Government Advocate
appearing for the State-Opposite Parties 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)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(M.S. RAMAN)
mrs JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANORANJAN SAMAL
Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 30-Oct-2023 16:43:35
