Geotech Airborne INDIA Private LTD, Mumbai vs. Odisha Mining Corporation LTD (Omc), Bhubaneswar
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
2026
1. Heard learned counsel for both the Parties.
Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.1, i.e., the Odisha Mining Corporation Limited (OMC), Bhubaneswar, be taken on record.
The instant Writ Petition is at the behest of the Petitioner, seeking the following reliefs:
“In view of above facts and circumstances and in the interest of natural justice, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to;
a.) Admit the writ petition.
b.) Declare that the withholding of the Withheld Amount by OMC, without any show-cause notice, formal Extension of Time decision, opportunity of hearing, or determination of actual financial loss, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
c.) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing OMC to forthwith release and pay to the Petitioner the Withheld Amount of Rs. 2,28,77,181.56/- (Rupees Two Crore Twenty-Eight Lakh Seventy-Seven Thousand One Hundred Eighty-One and Paise Fifty-Six Only), together with applicable GST thereon and interest at the applicable commercial rate from the respective due dates of each invoice;
d.) In the alternative, issue a Writ of Mandamus directing OMC to pass a formal, reasoned written order in compliance with the principles of natural justice and Article 14, specifically identifying (i) the contractual provision(s) relied upon; (ii) the invoice-wise quantum withheld and the calculation methodology; (iii) the determination of actual financial loss, if any; and (iv) the procedural steps, if any, taken before effecting each deduction;”
From the meaningful reading of the reliefs claimed in the instant Writ Petition, there is not even a single doubt in our mind that the Petitioner prayed for a release of the amount withheld by the Opposite Party No.1, i.e., the Odisha Mining Corporation Limited (OMC), Bhubaneswar, together with the interest at the applicable commercial rate from the date of the respected invoices till its actual payment.
The question often arose before the Writ Court when the Writ of such nature is filed as to whether the Court should entertain such a Writ Petition to direct the parties to make the payments or the proper remedy to such a person is to approach the Civil Court, seeking a money decree against the person, is otherwise found liable to make such payments.
The reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex payment. The answer can be traced from the judgment of the Hon’ble by the Apex Court in the following:
“13. What can be reasonably gathered from the aforesaid decision that ordinarily the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to enforce the civil rights touching upon the breach of the contract is not maintainable, but there is no fetter on the part of the Writ Court in directing the payment thereof if it relates to enforcement of a statutory right or on the functions of its officials. It is further held that the moment the question involves the public law functions dependent upon the peculiarity of the facts, there is no absolute inhibition in the Writ Court in granting the reliefs in the form of refund of the amount.
It is axiomatic to record that there is no complete bar in entertaining the Writ Petition claiming relief of refund of admitted and/or crystallized amount. The Writ Court shall refuse to grant such relief if it involves a disputed question of facts, the voluminous
documents to be considered and the evidence to be laid by the Authorities. In such situation, the Writ Court may refuse to exercise such juri iction and relegate the parties to the Civil Court. The Court must ascertain before it embarks its journey on such parameters as to whether the action or the function of the public Authorities or its officials are unreasonable, irrational and deprives the right accrued to the litigant to have the said amount refunded to it.”
or extended from time to time and the bills/invoices were raised to the Opposite Party No.1, i.e., the Odisha Mining Corporation Limited (OMC), Bhubaneswar. The payments were released from time to time but the 10% of the invoice value was retained.
According to the Petitioner, the moment the claim was made towards the withheld amount, a letter was caused by the Opposite Party No.1, i.e., the Odisha Mining Corporation Limited (OMC), Bhubaneswar, on 27th February, 2026 through e-mail indicating that the withholding of the 10% of the total contract value was agreed upon as the Petitioner is obligated to provide the formal letter confirming the reasons for delay compared to the NIT timeline milestones.
The Petitioner responded to the said letter on 5th March, 2026, indicating that there was no agreement to withhold the 10% of the invoice value the and same being the unilateral act on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, i.e., the Odisha Mining Corporation Limited (OMC), Bhubaneswar, is not binding upon the Petitioner.
The question, therefore, hinges upon whether there was any agreement and/or consensus having arrived between the Parties to withhold the said amount or not, is essentially a question dependent upon the quality of the evidence to be adduced by the respective Parties. Once the dispute arose on a factual aspect of the matter, it would not be proper for the Writ Court to invoke the extraordinary power enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and must relegate the Parties to the proper forum to ventilate their grievance and invite adjudication thereupon.
Thus, we find that the disputes appear to have been raised which requires to be adjudicated in a private law forum and therefore, the writ juri iction in this regard is not a proper remedy. We
therefore, do not find any justification in entertaining the instant Writ Petition. The same is hereby dismissed. However, the dismissal of the Writ Petition shall not prevent the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for the identical and similar reliefs in accordance with law.
(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge
AKPradhan/Priyanka
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.