Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.37159 of 2025 Mohan Kumar Sagar ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. – Mr. Asit Kumar Jena -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. S.K. Brahma, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 08.01.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that considering the above facts and circumstances this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the opposite parties more particularly to the opposite party No.4 & 5 to provide running bills against the construction of VSS building of Paadapadar Gram panchayat under Thualalmpur in the district of Kalahandi as early as possible, enabling the petitioner to proceed further construction of the said building in the interest of justice. Page 2 of 3. And pass such other order/orders as would be deemed fit and proper.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that on the verbal instruction of the J.E., the Petitioner carried out some construction work in respect of Paadapadar Gram Panchayat for construction of Vana Surekhaya Samit building. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the case record annexed to the writ petition at Annexure-2. He further contended that although the construction work has been completed upto roof level, however, he has not been paid his legitimate dues. He further contended that ventilating his grievance, the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.3-Collector, Kalahandi for redressal of his grievance by filing his representations dated 06.11.2025 and 24.11.2025 at Annexure-1 series, however, no decision has been taken on such representations of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Party No.3, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the Petitioner has not filed any record to show that any work order has been issued in his favour. However, in the event any construction work has been carried out on the instruction of the J.E., it is open to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Parties for redressal of his grievance, and that if the Petitioner has already approached the competent authority Page 3 of 3. by filing representation, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.3 to look into such grievance in accordance with law. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both the sides and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the materials on record, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.3-Collector, Kalahandi to look into the grievance of the Petitioner involved in his representations under Annexure-1 series and dispose of such representations within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by passing a reasoned order. If required the Petitioner shall also be provided an opportunity of hearing by the Opposite Party No.3. The final decision so taken on such representations be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis