Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.23977 of 2025 M/s. Binny Construction, Ganjam ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Gopinath Mishra -versus- State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – U.R. Jena, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 03.09.2025 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. Perused the application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. By filing the present writ application the Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to forthwith revive the contract with the Petitioner and for a further direction to release all pending bills of the Petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that pursuant to the work order issued by the Opposite Party No.3 i.e. KEC international Ltd. dated 01.06.2023 at Annexure-1, the Petitioner had executed certain works under the supervision of Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the Collector and District Magistrate, Page 2 of 3. Ganjam. He further contended that although the work was performed by the Petitioner, however, some amount is still remaining outstanding. He further submitted that although the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.3, however, no steps have been taken to clear the outstanding dues. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended since the dues are admitted by the Opposite Party No.3, he may be directed to pay the balance dues of the Petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the maintainability of the present writ application. He further submitted that the grievance of the Petitioner is against Opposite Party No.3, who is a private party. As such, the Opposite Party No.3 is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. He further submitted that so far the State-Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 are concerned, they are no way concerned with the work performed by the present Petitioner as the same was assigned to the Opposite Party No.3. Therefore, they have no direct relationship with the present Petitioner and as such, they are not liable to pay any amount to the Petitioner. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the present writ application is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the background of the facts, further taking into consideration the nature of the grievance involved in the writ application, this Court observes that the entire claim of the Petitioner in the present writ application is against the Opposite Party No.3 and that through on the basis of the work Page 3 of 3. order dated 01.06.2023 at Annexure-1. The work order at Annexure-1 has been issued by the Opposite Party No.3-company to the Petitioner-company. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the present writ application is not maintainable. However, considering the grievance of the Petitioner that the work was conducted under the supervision of Opposite Party No.2, this Court grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite party No.2 by filing a detailed representation ventilating his grievance along with supporting documents within two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite party No.3 shall consider the representation of the Petitioner and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within six weeks from the date of filing of such representation. 7. It is further made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion merits of the matter. 8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Anil Designation: Junior Stenographer