Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 133 (ORI)

Jay Ram Pujahari v. State Of Odisha

2021-03-18

K.R.MOHAPATRA

body2021
ORDER 1. Heard Mr. Prabodha Chandra Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Prabhat Kumar Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. 2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 20th August, 2020 (Annexure-1) passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Government of Odisha, Works Department, Bhubaneswar, whereby he rejected the representation of the Petitioner for grant of incentive for timely completion of work as per the condition in the DTCN as well as provisions of OPWD Code. 3. The averments in the writ petition reveal that the Petitioner being a Special Class Contractor was awarded with the work 'Construction of HL Bridge over Raxapali Nallah at 71/500 Km on Sambalpur-Sonepur Road SH-15 under CRF' (for short the "Project"). The Petitioner completed the Project on 21st December, 2016, i.e., much prior to the stipulated date of completion and intimated the same to the authorities claiming incentive for timely completion of Project. Due to inaction of authorities in granting incentive to the Petitioner, he submitted a representation dated 14th January, 2019 before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Government of Odisha, Works Department, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.1, which was not paid any heed. Consequently, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.7796 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 26th August, 2019 directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider and dispose of his representation within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.1 passed the impugned order dated 20th August, 2020 (Annexure-1), relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:- 'And whereas, the proposal of payment of incentive has been duly examined with reference to the extant OPWD Codal Provision & the same was regretted by the Works Department after taking Govt. approval on the ground that the concerned Executive Engineer has not reported the actual date of Completion of the project as soon as possible through Fax or E-mail so that the report is received within 7 days of Completion by the concerned SE, CE and Administrative Department as per provision of Para 3.5.5.(v) Note-III of OPWD Code, Vol-I; Therefore, taking into account the above facts and circumstances, the representation of the petitioner has no merit for consideration and the same is disposed of accordingly being devoid of merit.' Assailing the same, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted, although the Project was completed on 21st December, 2016, but the Executive Engineer R&B Division, Sonepur-Opposite Party No.5 intimated the completion of the Project to the Chief Engineer, (DPI & Roads), Odisha, Bhubaneswar, vide his letter No.193 dated 28th January, 2017. As it was not communicated within the seven days as stipulated in Paragraph-3.5.5 (v) Note-III of the OPWD Code Vol-I, request of the Petitioner for grant of incentive was turned down. 4.1 Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Petitioner has no contribution for delay in communicating the completion of Project to the authority for grant of incentive. For the laches of Opposite Party No.5, the Petitioner should not be made to suffer. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the ratio in Prafulla Kumar Pradhan v. State of Odisha, 2017 (I) ILR-CUT-381, wherein this Court held as follows: '11. In the order passed on 30.05.2016, opposite party no.2 has resorted to a clause in the OPWD Code which provided that it is the obligation of the Executive Engineer to report about the completion of work within seven days thereof and since the Executive Engineer failed to do so, the petitioner would not be entitled to grant of incentive. It is surprising that for no fault of the petitioner, he has to suffer even though he has completed the work much prior to the stipulated date of completion and has already been paid the final bill, within ten days of completion of the work. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for no fault on his part, especially when all the authorities have themselves accepted that the work was completed much prior to the date of completion. 12. In our view, in the facts of this case, the petitioner would be entitled to the incentive for early completion of work as provided for under clause-6.21 of the tender call notice. The order dated 30.05.2016 is thus quashed. Opposite party no.2-Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health, Odisha is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law giving the petitioner benefit of clause-6.21 of the tender call notice within two months from the date of filing of the certified copy of this order.' He, therefore, submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to the incentive for early completion of the Project, which has been refused for no justifiable reason. He prays for setting aside the order passed under Annexure-1 and to release the incentive for early completion of the Project work. 5. Mr. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate relying upon Paragraph-3.5.5 (v) of the OPWD Code Vol-I submitted that it is mandatory under the aforesaid provision on the part of the concerned Executive Engineer to report the actual date of completion of the Project as soon as possible through fax or email so that the report can be received within seven days of such completion by the Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer or the concerned Department, as the case may be. In the instant case, no intimation of successful completion of the Project was intimated within seven days. Although the Executive Engineer reported that the Project work was completed on 21st December, 2016, but the report of the Executive Engineer, R&B Division, Sonepur was received only vide letter dated 28th January, 2017, i.e., beyond seven days, which is a mandatory requirement as per Paragraph- 3.5.5 (v) of the OPWD Code Vol-I. Thus, the Commissioner- cum-Secretary of the Works Department (OP No.1) has committed no error in refusing the claim of the Petitioner for grant of incentive. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed before this Court. Paragraph-3.5.5 (v) of OPWD Code Vol-I reads as follows:- 'For availing incentive clause in any project which is completed before the stipulated date of completion, subject to other stipulations, it is mandatory on the part of the concerned Executive Engineer to report the actual date of completion of the project as soon as possible through fax or e-mail so that the report is received within 7 days of such completion by the concerned SE., C.E. and the Administrative Department.' Thus, timely intimation of completion of the project by the concerned Executive Engineer is a mandatory requirement under the aforesaid provision in order to avail incentive by the Contractor for early completion of the Project. The report in that regard has to be intimated within a period of seven days from the date of completion of the Project. Admittedly, the intimation was not sent by the Executive Engineer within the stipulated period of seven days. There is also no allegation that the Petitioner had contributed to such delay in intimation. The report in that regard has to be intimated within a period of seven days from the date of completion of the Project. Admittedly, the intimation was not sent by the Executive Engineer within the stipulated period of seven days. There is also no allegation that the Petitioner had contributed to such delay in intimation. In view of the ratio in Prafulla Kumar Pradhan (supra), the Petitioner cannot be faulted with for the delay in communication of the completion report by the Executive Engineer. The Petitioner cannot be made to suffer for no fault on his part, particularly when the authorities have accepted the fact that the Project was completed prior to the stipulated date. 7. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to set aside the order dated 20th August, 2020 (Annexure-1) passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Works Department, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar (OP No.1) in refusing the claim of the Petitioner for grant of incentive. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Petitioner shall be paid the incentive for early completion of the Project in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.