p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6682 of 2026 Biswajit Patra …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.– Mr. R.K. Sarangi, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.– Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Addl. Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 22.07.2026 01. 1. The instant writ petition is at the behest of a contractor assailing the order dated 26th November, 2025 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Cuttack Forest Division in closing the contract for the work “SMC works such as Graded Bund, Staggered Trench, Water Body, Contour Trench and Boundary Trench at Jajpur Road Section under Jajpur Road Range in the District of Jajpur under OMBADC Scheme for the year 2023-24 (DPR, 2022-23)”. p. 2 2. According to the petitioner, the said contract was abruptly closed by the said authority without taking any steps in the form of issuance of show cause, nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. The shelter is taken under clause 2(b) of the conditions of contract, which mandates the rescission of a contract to be preceded by a notice and, therefore, the action of the authority is in contravention to the said clause. 3. Ms. Aishwarya Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties submits on instructions that the contract was awarded to the petitioner to be completed in a time bound manner, yet there was no substantial progress having shown by the petitioner in relation thereto. In fact, the meager amount of the work which was done, cause several damage to the trees, for which the compensation was realize in the form of fine from the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner responds to the said stand of the learned Additional Standing Counsel in contending that there was a huge obstruction created by the peoples of the locality. In fact, they have approached the National Green Tribunal (NGT) which really p. 3 impedes the progress of the work to be undertaken in terms of the said contract. 5. We find from the record that the contract was awarded to be completed within the stipulated time. The time has already expired and it appears from the instructions so received that the petitioner neither applied for an extension of time nor raises any issue pertaining to the obstruction created by the local peoples. Even the petitioner is not in a position to apprise the Court whether there was any preventive order passed by the NGT in a proceeding initiated against him. There is no fetter on the part of the contractor to execute the contract in absence of any preventive order having issued by the competent authority. The petitioner cannot steal a march after the period of contract expired by efflux of time. 6. The Court cannot rewrite the contract between the parties, but interpret the contract within the four corners of the legal framework. Once the work to be executed in a time bound manner and in the event the time has expired and no attempt appears to have been made for seeking extension thereof, we do not find that there is any element warranting the interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. p. 4 7. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed. No order as to costs. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge S.K. Guin/PA