Orissa High Court
WP(C)/8542/2026 of KONARK SURYANAGRI PVT. LTD., BBSR Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 20 May 2026
of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.8542 of 2026 Konark Suryanagri Private Limited …. Petitioner Mr. Jitendra Samantaray, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Bijaya Kumar Dash, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Smruti Ranjan Dash,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.8542 of 2026
Konark Suryanagri Private Limited ….
Petitioner
Mr. Jitendra Samantaray, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others
….
Opposite Parties
Mr. Bijaya Kumar Dash, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Smruti Ranjan Dash, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
20.05.2026
01.
1. The petitioner, having participated in the Notice Inviting Tender dated 23.12.2020 for development of 10 MW on-Grid Solar power Project under 100% solarisation of Konark Sun Temple & Konark Town Programme, being declared successful bidder, was awarded the contract.
2. Though the lease of land agreement was executed with the Odisha Renewable Energy Development Agency (OREDA) on 15.11.2023, physical possession of the land could be handed over on 10.05.2024. Thereafter, all formalities took a considerable length of time. The Ministry of New & Renewable Energy, Govt. of India by its Office Memorandum dated 15.07.2025 granted extension of time till 30.11.2025 for completion of the project. While the matter stood thus, a letter dated 25.09.2025 came to be served on the petitioner issued by the OREDA Ltd., which reveals that,
“in light of the above non-compliances, you were requested to submit a show cause reply within 10(ten) days of receipt of our earlier communication, addressing the following points: The reasons for your absence from the project review meetings, particularly the meeting on 30.08.2025, without any prior intimation. The reasons for non-submission of the Monthly Progress Reports. Justification as to why appropriate action should not be initiated against you, including cancellation of the awarded project work, forfeiture of your submitted Bank Guarantee amount to Rs.2.075 Crores and balcklisting of all the members of the SPV. As on the date of this letter, your response is still awaited. You are hereby reminded once again to submit your detailed reply within 10 (Ten) days of receipt of the letter. Failing to do so shall be considered as your unwillingness or inability to execute the project within the approved timeline, and this office will be constrained to take appropriate action as deemed fit, without any further notice.”
3. Sri Jitendra Samantaray, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in response to the said show cause, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 17.12.2024 elucidating the reason for delay in completion of the project. It is submitted that without paying any heed to such reply, no extension of period has yet been communicated to the petitioner, which compelled it to approach this Court for showing indulgence. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner has moved this application for issue of writ of mandamus to the opposite parties not to cancel the letter of award and blacklist the petitioner, appreciating the reasons for the delay as cited.
4. Sri Bijaya Kumar Das, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri Smruti Ranjan Dash, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 (OREDA) submitted that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the authority concerned for the above said purpose.
5. This Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition for a direction not to cancel the letter of award issued in favour of the petitioner. However, it is open for the petitioner, if so advised, to approach the concerned authority within a period of seven days from today along with copy of this order and furnish necessary documents disclosing the reason for the delay in execution of work entrusted to it. In such eventuality, the authority concerned shall consider the grievance of the petitioner pragmatically within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of filing of such representation and communicate the decision taken thereon to the petitioner forthwith.
6. As an abundant caution, it is clarified that nothing stated above on facts be construed as expression of opinion on the merit of the matter. The appropriate authority is free to take independent decision on the merit of the matter on the basis of the material placed on record before him by the petitioner.
7. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ petition along with pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, stand disposed of.
(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman) Judge
Aswini Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT (SECY I/C) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-May-2026 13:18:32 Signature Not Verified