'Can't Resort To Coercive Measures': Orissa High Court Denies Relief To Contractor Who Locked Mini Stadium Over Unpaid Dues
The Orissa High Court has dismissed a petition challenging an ex-parte order passed against a contractor, asking him to remove obstruction, who allegedly locked a Mini Stadium in the district of Cuttack over non-payment of his dues by the government authorities.
A Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held that the petitioner cannot be allowed to take coercive measures to the detriment of public to enforce a monetary claim. Rejecting his challenge to the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), the Court remarked–
“The Petitioner cannot resort to self-help or coercive measures to enforce a monetary claim. Even if any amount is due, the appropriate remedy lies in approaching the competent authority or initiating proceedings in accordance with law for recovery of such dues. Taking law into one's own hands by restricting access to public property is impermissible in law.”
In 2023, the government undertook the construction and development work of Mahapurush Shree Achyutananda Mini Stadium, Nemalo in the district of Cuttack. The petitioner Nrusingh Charan Muduli, who is a contractor, was selected and entrusted by the opposite parties to execute the said work.
Just prior to the inauguration of the complex, the concerned officials orally requested the petitioner to complete some additional works at his own cost for the time being. The petitioner alleged to have received only a sum of Rs.82,00,000/- towards running bills, whereas the estimated project cost was Rs.1,27,80,000/-. Additionally, he claimed to have incurred approximately Rs.60,00,000/- towards the additional works executed prior to inauguration.
Notwithstanding completion of the work, the final bill was not released. The petitioner was aggrieved by the amount he personally incurred towards labour and materials on credit and complained of suffering severe financial hardship, mental agony and physical stress due to non-payment.
When the petitioner repeatedly knocked at the doors of the authorities for release of his unpaid dues, an inquiry was conducted by the Block Development Officer (BDO), Nischintakoili. In his report submitted to the SDM, Cuttack, the BDO recorded that although the stadium was completed, the petitioner had not been paid his outstanding dues.
On 02.01.2026, the Tahasildar, Nischintakoili approached the SDM alleging unauthorized locking of the Mini Stadium by the petitioner and sought appropriate orders for removal of such alleged obstruction. Accordingly, a case was registered, and on 21.02.2026, the SDM, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed an ex-parte order under Section 152 of the BNSS directing immediate removal of the lock.
The petitioner impugned the said order before the High Court particularly on the ground that the SDM, without taking into account material facts, passed the order against him. He argued that such order is ex facie unsustainable as the Executive Magistrate failed to acknowledge the reason, i.e. non-payment of his dues, which forced him to take the extreme step. Secondly, he also found fault with the order as it was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to him, which is against the rule of natural justice, i.e. audi alteram partem.
Against the above factual backdrop, the Court examined the legality of the impugned order of the SDM. Upon perusing the same, Justice Panigrahi was of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order and notice dated 21.02.2026, as the petitioner admittedly obstructed access to the Mini Stadium at Nemalo, which is a public property situated on a Government land.
Therefore, the Judge was of the view that the SDM rightly passed the order to remove obstruction, since the petitioner does not have any right to take coercive step to enforce a monetary claim against government authorities. Thus, he held that taking law into his hands by restricting access to the Mini Stadium is impermissible in law.
Notwithstanding the dismissal of the petition, the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the competent forum and to pursue appropriate remedy for recovery of his legal dues.
Case Title: Nrusingh Charan Muduli v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case No: CRLMC No. 834 of 2026
Date of Order: April 08, 2026
Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Suryanshi Srivastava, Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. Sonak Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 43