GREATMAN, RAJGANGPUR, SUNDARGARH v. STATE OF ODISHA
Court: High Court of Orissa
Bench: MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Orissa judgment dated 2026-04-30. GREATMAN, RAJGANGPUR, SUNDARGARH v. STATE OF ODISHA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W. P. (C) No. 6401 of 2026 Greatman, represented through its Proprietor-Kishore Mohapatra, Rajgangpur, Sundargah …. Petitioner Mr. Pranab Kumar Pasayat, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Debasish Nayak, Addl. Government Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER Order No. 30. 04. 2026 01. 1. The petitioner, peeved against indifference shown by the opposite parties in not releasing the payment with respect to work performed in connection with the Work Order vide Letter No. 3485 dated 02. 08. 2022 issued by the District Welfare Officer, Mayurbhanj (opposite party No. 3), approached this Court by way of this writ petition invoking provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard Mr. Pranab Kumar Pasayat, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Debasish Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties-State. 3.
The case of the petitioner is that the District Welfare Officer, Mayurbhanj (opposite party No. 3) on 02. 08. 2022 issued work order No. 3485 for repairing of damaged incinerators supplied to different hostels of Mayurbhanj District. It is stated that the incinerators supplied by the petitioner have been damaged and not in functional as per the report of the Welfare Extension Officer, Udala. The warranty of the incinerators installed have been elapsed and in order to make them workable, the opposite party No. 3 requested the petitioner to go ahead with the repairing work in different hostels. It is further stated that after completion of the work in question, though the petitioner submitted the bills for disbursement of the dues, till date the same has not been paid by the authority concerned. 3. 1. It is further stated that though ventilating its grievance, the petitioner has already made a representation on 18. 11. 2025 to the District Welfare Officer, Mayurbhanj (opposite party No.
3) vide Annexure-7, the same is pending consideration till date. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has prayed that a direction to the opposite party No. 3 to take a decision on the above mentioned representation within a specific time period. Sri Debashis Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate has no objection for allowing such a prayer for disposing of the representation, if pending. 4. Considering the submissions made and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court disposes of the writ petition directing the petitioner to approach the District Welfare Officer, Mayurbhanj (opposite party No. 3) along with a copy of this order and the representation dated 18. 11. 2025 filed by it (Annexure-7), within one week hence. In such event, the opposite party No. 3 shall take steps to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter and communicate the result of such decision to the petitioner immediately. (M.
S. Raman) Judge Bichi
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.