[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sri Gomandir Goshala vs Rourkela Municipal Corporation on 9 February, 2026
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 10-Feb-2026 14:32:19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.34578 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.22944 of 2025
(Under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
W.P.(C) No.34578 of 2025
Sri Gomandir Goshala, Rourkela, .... Petitioner
Sundargarh
-versus-
Rourkela Municipal Corporation,
Sundargarh and another ... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 22944 of 2025
Sri Gomandir Goshala, Rourkela, .... Petitioner
Sundargarh
-versus-
Rourkela Municipal Corporation,
Sundargarh and another ... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner in both the : Mr. A.Rath, Advocate
cases.
For Opp. Parties in both : Mr. T.K. Dash, AGA
the cases. Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUDGMENT
th
9 February, 2026
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.
Mohapatra, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 - Rourkela
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 10-Feb-2026 14:32:19
Municipal Corporation, and Mr. Dash, learned Additional Government
Advocate for State-Opposite Party.
2. Both the writ petitions being interlinked and between same
parties are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment.
3. W.P.(C) No.22944 of 2025 has been filed with the prayer to
quash the impugned order of termination of contract dated 25 th July
2025 under Annexure-9, and the second writ petition in W.P.(C)
No.34578 of 2025 has been filed by the same Petitioner praying for
release of the admissible outstanding dues from April, 2025 onwards.
4. The Petitioner is a Kine house registered under the Indian Trust
Act as a charitable trust running for the benefit of cattles, particularly
stray cattles. It is submitted that more than three hundred cattles have
been boarded inside Petitioner's Kine house. The Opposite Party, i.e.
Rourkela Municipal Corporation (in short 'RMC') used the services of
the Petitioner for its purpose as a rehabilitation ground for stray cattle
as well as dead animals and carcasses thereof from RMC area. On 25th
July 2025, a notice of termination the contract between the Petitioner's
Kine house and RMC was issued by the RMC citing reasons that the
Kine house is indulged in activities in violation of terms and conditions
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 10-Feb-2026 14:32:19
outlined in the Operation and Maintenance (O & M) Agreement as per
Annexure-5. The same was challenged in first writ petition, i.e.
W.P.(C) No.22944 of 2025 and this Court vide order dated 20 th August
2025 passed an interim order directing that the impugned order of
termination dated 25th July 2005 under Annexure-9 shall not be given
effect to till next date, along with the direction to release such pending
outstanding bills against the RMC, if there is no other legal
impediment. The said interim order of stay of impugned termination
order dated 25th July 2025 is in force till date. But what happened in
the meantime is that, the pending outstanding dues of the Petitioner due
on RMC has been withheld on the ground that the same are not
supported with requisite bank statements as proof of expenditure in
terms of Clause (v) of the Contract. Accordingly, the Petitioner filed
the second writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No.34578 of 2025 with the prayer
afore-stated.
5. Admittedly, the bills of the Petitioner from July 2025 onwards
are pending with RMC till date. Clause (v) of the Contract (Annexure-
5) dated 1st March 2025 speaks that, "during submission of the bill,
which should be accompanied with bank statement regarding
expenditure details".
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 10-Feb-2026 14:32:19
6. Coming now to the challenge in respect of the order of
termination of contract dated 25th July 2025, it is found that the show
cause submitted by the Petitioner pursuant to notice issued by RMC is
not found satisfactory in the opinion of the RMC. It needs to be
mentioned here that it is well settled that when a party is asked to
submit his show cause and the punitive action is taken pursuant to
consideration of the show cause reply, the same must reflect the
reasons dealing with the grounds taken in the show cause reply. But on
bare perusal of the impugned order dated 25th July 2025 (Annexure-9
to first writ petition), the same does not reveal any such reason
assigned or mentioned by RMC while terminating the contract, except
mentioning one line that the show cause is found unsatisfactory.
7. In the same order, it is though mentioned that certain ongoing
activities happening in the kind house are in violation of terms and
conditions outlined in the contract, but no specification of the same
have been mentioned either in the show cause notice or in the
impugned order with reasons thereof. There is also no fact finding
report arrived by RMC pursuant to the allegations leveled against the
Petitioner. The allegations made against the Petitioner are seen based
on the factual activities which of course need a preliminary verification
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 10-Feb-2026 14:32:19
by the fact finding authority. When the Petitioner disputes such
allegations made against him regarding conduct of such alleged
activities in the Kine house, it becomes imperative on the part of RMC
to satisfy himself about the same on actual materials and not by
speculations or whims. Therefore, as it reveals prima facie from the
impugned order dated 25th July 2025, the same needs reconsideration
by the authorities.
8. So far as the non-payment of pending dues are concerned, it is
undisputed that the same are pending till date and it is also not the case
of the RMC that the Petitioner is not maintaining those cattle in terms
of the contract till date and it is not feeding such cattle. So it is
inferred that the Petitioner is maintaining those cattle in terms of the
contract executed with the RMC till date and as such, he is entitled to
such bills as per his expenditure. Taking note of such admitted facts,
Opposite Party No.1, i.e. RMC, is directed to release the bills for such
amount due on the part of the Petitioner within a period of three weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
9. In the result, both the writ petitions are disposed of by quashing
the impugned order of termination dated 25 th July 2025 (Annexure-9 to
W.P.(C) No.22944 of 2025) with further direction to reconsider the
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 10-Feb-2026 14:32:19
matter afresh by Opposite Party No.1 with such fact finding report and
grant of due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Further, as stated above, bills of the Petitioner pending with Opposite
Party No.1 (RMC) should also be released without further delay,
preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
C.R. Biswal, A.R.-cum-Sr. Secretary
