Authority: High Court of Odisha at Cuttack

Order Date: 07.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Pratap Bhoi, represented by Advocate P.K. Rath.
  • Opposite Parties: State of Odisha (Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Bhubaneswar), Collector, Cuttack; Project Director, DRDA, Cuttack; Block Development Officer, Kantapada, Cuttack; General Manager, Odisha SC & ST Development Finance Cooperative Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar; Sanjay Kumar Bhoi; ST & SC Development Minorities & Backward Classes Welfare Department, Bhubaneswar.
  • Counsel for Opposite Parties: M.R. Mohanty (AGA), P.C. Das (Advocate), N. Swain (Advocate).
  • Nature of Petition: Writ petition seeking issuance of a work order for the execution of "Construction of CC Road from Sunei Bhoi House to Kakatpur Branch Canal Bandha" alleging inaction by state authorities.
  • Background: The grievance had been previously raised in W.P.(C) No.1780 of 2015 (disposed 23.03.2015), W.P.(C) Nos.2554 & 12774 of 2015 (disposed 09.09.2015), and W.P.(C) No.13430 of 2016 (disposed 19.09.2024). Extracts of those orders were reproduced, directing the petitioner to file representations before the Collector and remitting matters for fresh consideration.
  • Key Allegations:
  • A letter (Annexure‑6 of DWO‑Cum‑District Manager OFSDC Ltd., Cuttack) dated 21.02.2015 addressed to the Block Development Officer, Kantapada, indicated that the work should be entrusted to the petitioner subject to fulfillment of requirements, but the work order was not issued.
  • Subsequent amendment to the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure Rules, 2002, mandated departmental execution of the work, resulting in a work order being issued to an Assistant Engineer (Annexure‑11).
  • The work order’s stipulated time has elapsed, rendering it void under clause‑1 of its terms and conditions.
  • Concern that departmental execution should not frustrate the spirit of MNREGA, now replaced by the VB‑G RAM G (Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission Gramin) scheme.
  • Court’s Observations: The petitioner lacks a cause of action to invoke writ jurisdiction according to the State’s counter‑affidavit, but the Court found merit in the grievance and emphasized that execution must respect the VB‑G RAM G scheme’s utilization of local workforce.

Final Outcome

  • The Court directed the concerned state authorities to execute the road construction departmentally, adhering to the latest guidelines and the VB‑G RAM G scheme, ensuring use of local labour.
  • Execution must commence at the earliest, preferably within four weeks from the date the order is uploaded.
  • The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Topics: Court Order, Public Works Execution, State Procurement