Atish Kumar Beuray vs. State Of Odisha

Facts

The petitioner, Atish Kumar Beuray, entered into an agreement with Odisha Coal and Power Limited (OCPL) for hiring a bus. The contract period was extended until July 17, 2021, with monthly hire charges of Rs. 1,88,000/- excluding GST. However, OCPL terminated the contract prematurely on April 30, 2021, with effect from the same date, citing the pandemic. The petitioner contended that the termination was illegal as it did not adhere to Clause-N of the agreement, which required one month's notice for termination based on performance failure. The petitioner sought disbursement of monthly charges until the contract's original completion date. The State argued that the petitioner was aware of the contract's non-workability during the pandemic and that the writ petition was filed nearly a year after the contract's cancellation, making it belated.

Held

The Court noted that while the contract period was extended until July 17, 2021, it was terminated prematurely on April 30, 2021, allegedly due to the pandemic. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's contention that the termination did not comply with Clause-N, which requires one month's notice. However, the Court also observed that the petitioner filed the writ petition on March 29, 2022, almost a year after the contract's cancellation. Due to this significant delay, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to pursue his remedy before the appropriate forum for claiming any damages sustained due to the agreement's cancellation. The issue of whether the termination was illegal for non-compliance with Clause-N was not definitively decided, but the relief sought by the petitioner was denied on grounds of delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the termination of the bus hiring contract by OCPL, effective April 30, 2021, was illegal for non-compliance with Clause-N of the agreement, which stipulated a one-month notice period for termination due to performance failure, and if so, is the petitioner entitled to hire charges until the contract's original expiry date of July 17, 2021? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the contract was terminated without adhering to Clause-N, which mandates a one-month notice period. As the contract was cancelled without this notice, it was illegal, and the petitioner is entitled to the full contract amount until July 17, 2021. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State contended that the contract was not worked out during the pandemic, leading to its termination. Furthermore, the petitioner approached the High Court nearly a year after the contract cancellation, rendering the writ petition belated and disentitled to entertainment, despite claims for damages.