Orissa High Court
Chakadola Construction Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 20 September, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 4192 of 2025
Chakadola Construction Pvt. Ltd. .... Petitioners
and another
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Sidhant Dwibedi,
Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Ms. Suman Pattanayak,
Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
JUDGMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing and Judgment : 20th September, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. The work awarded to the petitioner-company was
undertaken by it not only in terms of the tender, but to the
satisfaction of the authorities yet. The RA bill submitted was not
paid which constrained the petitioners to move the writ petition
before this Court.
2. At the time of admission of the instant writ petition, the
attention of the learned Additional Government Advocate
representing the State-opposite parties was drawn and an
opportunity to file an affidavit was afforded to them. The counter
affidavit filed by the State reveals inconsistent statements and a
submission is advanced that whatever bill is submitted by the
petitioners has been paid off.
3. The petitioners raise a point that though the RA bill has now
been paid, the authorities have not prepared the final bill after taking
the measurement upon completion of the work and, therefore, they
are still in default.
4. Interestingly, a stand is taken by the State-opposite parties
before us that since the petitioners did not submit the final bill, there
was no occasion to make any payments. After the attention is drawn
to Clause-7 of the conditions of contract, it is sought to be contended
taking shelter under the averments made in paragraphs-15, 16 and
17 of the counter affidavit that the entire measurement was
undertaken by the authorities and the payment has been released on
the basis thereof, and, therefore, there is no subsisting claim which
is required to be paid. It is sought to be contended that Clause-6 of
the conditions of contract provides for measurement and after taking
the measurement, the amount has been determined which would be
regarded as a full and final settlement of the claim of the petitioners.
5. We are unable to accept such stand taken by the State-
opposite parties. Clause-6 provides that a bill shall be submitted by
the contractor every month on or before the date fixed by the
Engineer-in-Charge or his sub-ordinate and a requisite measurement
for such purpose of verification of the claim shall be taken and in the
event, such bill is not submitted on a monthly basis, the said
authority shall take a measurement of the said work in presence of
the contractor, who is required to countersign on the measurement
sheet which shall be binding on him. The said Clause is quoted as
under:
"Payment of Clause -6 : A bill shall be submitted
intermediate
by the contractor each month on or
certificate to
be regarded as before the date fixed by the Engineer-
advances and
in-Charge or his sub-ordinate shall
bill to be
submitted. take the requisite measurement for the
purpose of having the same verified
and the claim, as far as admissible,
adjusted, if possible, before the expiry
of ten days from the representation of
the bill. If the contractor does not
submit the bill within the time fixed as
aforesaid, the Engineer-in-Charge or
his subordinate shall measure up the
said work in the presence of the
contractor whose countersignature of
the measurement list will be sufficient
warrant, and the Engineer-in-charge
or his sub-ordinate shall prepare a bill
from such list which shall be binding
on the contractor in all respects.
Provided that, if any balance of 10%
security is outstanding from each such
payment shall be deducted so much,
not exceeding 5% as may be
necessary to make up the balance of
the security. All such intermediate
payments to the contractor shall be
regarded as payments by way of
advance against the final payment
only and not as payments for work
actually done and completed, and
shall not preclude the requiring of
bad, unsound and imperfect or
unskillful work to be removed and
taken away and reconstructed or re-
erected, or be considered as an
admission of the due performance of
the contract, or any part thereof in any
respect, or the actual of any claim nor
shall it conclude, determine, of effect
in any way the powers of the Engineer
in-charge under these conditions or
any of them as to the final settlement
or adjustment of the accounts or
otherwise, or in any other way vary or
affect the contract."
6. On the meaningful reading of the said Clause, it appears that
since construction is done uninterruptedly and/or continuously, the
running bill is required to be submitted on a monthly basis for the
works done during the said month and the payments are to be
released after the measurement is taken by the concerned officer
mentioned in Clause-6 of the said condition of contract. It further
postulates that in the event such bill is not submitted, yet a duty is
cast upon the said officer to take a measurement and invite the
attention of the contractor to put the countersignature thereupon with
the restrictions that later on the contractor will not raise any
objection thereto. The said Clause is applicable in relation to an
ongoing construction work and cannot be regarded as a final bill. By
no stretch of imagination, any interpretation can be assigned to such
Clause in relation to the final bill which comes under Clause-7 of
the said conditions of contract. Clause-7 provides the final bill to be
prepared by the offices of the Rural Works Department in
accordance with the rules of the Department in presence of the
contractor within one month of the date fixed for completion of the
work. It conveys a clear intention of the contracting parties that
Clause-6 is applicable with regard to the ongoing construction and
Clause-7 is relatable to a final bill to be prepared by the office after
the said work is completed. The authority was conscious of such
aspect and clearly averred in paragraph-17 of the counter affidavit
that since the final bill was not submitted by the contractor, the
payment could not be made. There lies a fallacy in the stand of the
State-opposite parties. Clause-7 does not mandate the submission of
final bill by the contractor, but it is a duty cast upon the Office of the
Rural Works Department to prepare the final bill and to make the
payments thereupon.
7. Though the learned counsel for the State tried to interpret the
averments made in the counter affidavit taking a circuitous route,
but we do not find any ambiguity in the aforesaid Clause for the
reason that it operates in a different contingency and/or eventuality.
The payment of the last RA bill cannot be construed as the payment
of final bill. Preparation of final bill is a paramount duty of the
office and, therefore, the stand of the State-opposite parties before
us is unsustainable and unacceptable.
8. We direct the Office of the Rural Works Department to
undertake an exercise as contemplated in the said Clause-7 within a
month from the date of communication of this order and shall raise
the final bill and in the event, any amount is owed to the
Department, the same shall be paid within a month therefrom.
9. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No
order as to costs.
(M.S. Raman) (Harish Tandon)
Judge Chief Justice
S.K. Guin/ PA
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 24-Sep-2025 11:50:09
