[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Himanshu Sekhar Deo .... Opp. Party on 6 March, 2026
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 16:58:16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No.249 OF 2025
State of Odisha and others .... Petitioners
Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal,
Additional Standing Counsel
-versus-
Himanshu Sekhar Deo .... Opp. Party
Mr. Subhakant Mahapatra, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
ORDER
Order No. 06.03.2026
2.
1. This mater is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This is an application condonation of delay of 166 days in
filing the RVWPET.
3. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for
the parties, delay in filing the Review Petition is condoned.
4. The IA stands disposed of.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(A.C. Behera)
Judge
1. On the prayer of Mr. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the
Opposite Party and on consent of Mr. Biswal, learned ASC for the
Review Petitioners, the RVWPET is taken up for adjudication.
2. This Review Petition has been filed seeking review of order
dated 23rd April, 2025 passed by this Bench in W.P.(C) No.3376 of
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 16:58:16
2025. In the Writ Petition, the Petitioner had the grievance with
regard to non-payment of his dues with regard to execution of work
as appears in P1 agreement. The case of the Writ Petitioner was that
he was entrusted with execution of certain road work vide agreement
No.6/Pl of 2018-2019 & agreement No.35 P1 of 2018-2019. After
completion of the work assigned, the Petitioner submitted the final
bills, but the same was not released in his favour. Hence, the Writ
Petition was filed.
3. Counter affidavit was filed by the State Government.
Maintainability of the Writ Petition was the plea taken by the State
Government in the counter affidavit. It was submitted that this Court
in several other Writ Petitions of similar nature, refused to entertain
the prayer for release of the final bills on the ground of
maintainability of the Writ Petition.
3.1 Mr. Biswal, learned ASC referring to Clause-28 of the P1
agreement also submits that the Petitioner has the remedy of filing
suit for release of the unpaid bill amount. This Court taking note of
the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, held that P1
agreement was executed in favour of the Petitioner for performing
the work, i.e., maintenance of RD road. The report for release of the
claim amount clearly discloses that the Writ Petitioner had
completed the work assigned to him. There was no denial in the
counter affidavit filed by the State Government with regard to the
averments made in the Writ Petition. Thus, this Court held that there
was no impediment on the part of the Tender Inviting Authority,
namely, the Review Petitioners to release the unpaid amount of the
Writ Petitioner for execution of the work in question. Accordingly,
the Superintending Engineer, R and W Division, Anandapur,
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 16:58:16
Keonjhar and Executive Engineer, R and W Division, Anandapur
were directed to release the
final bills of the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably
within a period of two months from the date of production of
certified copy of the order passed in the Writ Petition.
4. The aforesaid order dated 23rd April, 2025 passed W.P.(C)
No.3376 of 2025 was not complied with. Thus, the Writ Petitioner
also filed CONTC No.4082 of 2025 for initiation of a proceeding
under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to suitably punish the
Contemnors.
5. Show cause affidavit was filed in the Contempt Petition
stating that the Review Petition against order dated 23rd April, 2025
passed in W.P.(C) No.3376 of 2025 has been filed. Thus, both the
Contempt Petition and the Review Petition were taken up.
6. Mr. Biswal, learned ASC vehemently argued that the Writ
Petition was not maintainable, as the subject matter of dispute is a
money claim.
7. Law is no more re integra that a Writ Petition is maintainable
when there is no dispute with regard to money claim. As observed in
the Writ Petition, there was no dispute with regard to final bills
raised by the Petitioner therein. Hence, the plea taken by Mr. Biswal,
learned ASC is mere technical one and the said ground had already
been taken care of in the order dated 23rd April, 2025 passed by this
Court in W.P.(C) No.3376 of 2025, which is sought to be reviewed
in the present Review Petition.
7.1 In the case of Lilly Thomas Vs. Union of India, 2000 (6)
SCC 224, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 16:58:16
merit of the case cannot be reappreciated in a review petition. In the
present Review Petition, an attempt has been made for revisiting the
merit of order dated 23rd April, 2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.3376 of
2025. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the Review Petition.
8. Accordingly, the RVWPET stands dismissed.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
s.s.satapathy
(A.C. Behera)
Judge
