The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2601 of 2019 (An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Sanjib Kumar Mohanty …. Petitioner -versus- Cuttack Development Authority …. Opposite Party Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioner - Mr. Raghunath Biswal, For Opposite Party- Mr. D. Mohapatra, Sr.Advocate. assisted by P.K. Singhdeo, Advocate. (for O.P.)
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :24.03.2025 :: Date of Judgment :03.04.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the Cuttack Development Authority (O.P.) to allot a plot after disposing of his representation (Annexure-7). 2. The case of the petitioner in his writ petition is that, he (petitioner) applied before the CDA (O.P.) for allotment of one ‘E’ Category plot depositing Rs.40,000/-(rupees forty thousand) on dated 31.03.2004 as initial deposit and O.P. received the same providing Registration No.34- W.P.(C) No.2601 of 2019 Page 1 of 8 E-2199-38 dated 31.03.2004 (Annexure-1). Subsequently, as per letter dated 07.01.2009 (Annexure-2), the O.P. intimated petitioner that, as the number of applications received for allotment of plots became more than the number of plot available for allotment, then due to non-availability of sufficient number of plots for allotment according to the number of applications, the CDA (O.P.) decided to refund the initial deposit i.e. Rs.40,000/-(rupees forty thousand) to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner got information under the R.T.I. Act from CDA (O.P.) on 06.04.2015 that, 20 numbers of vacant plots of ‘E’ Category are available with CDA (O.P.) for allotment. So, challenging the above letter dated 07.01.2009 of the CDA (O.P.) for the return of the initial deposited amount, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.(C)
Decision
No.2896 of 2009 before this Court and that writ petition was disposed of on dated 17.06.2015 “directing the O.P. to consider the case of the petitioner along with others, if the question of allotment of plots by the O.P. arises.” When, the O.P. did not take any step for the allotment of such 20 numbers of ‘E’ Category plots, those were not allotted, then on dated 09.02.2018, the petitioner made a representation vide Annexure-4 before the O.P. to allow him for depositing Rs.40,000/-(rupees forty thousand) as initial deposit for allotment of a ‘E’ Category plot in his favour and requested O.P. to take decision for allotment of a ‘E’ Category plot in his W.P.(C) No.2601 of 2019 Page 2 of 8 favour as early as possible as per the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2896 of 2009. When, the O.P. did not consider his representation dated 09.02.2018 (Annexure-4), then he (petitioner) filed an another writ petition vide W.P.(C) No.7601 of 2018 in this Court praying for directing the O.P. for the disposal of his representation dated 09.02.2018 (Annexure-4). That W.P.(C) No.7601 of 2018 was disposed of by this Court on dated 16.05.2018 “directing the O.P. (CDA) to dispose of the representation dated 09.02.2018 (Annexure-4) of the petitioner within 21 working days from such order”. On the basis of such order dated 16.05.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.7601 of 2018, the petitioner made initial deposit i.e. Rs.40,000/- (rupees forty thousand) before the O.P. (CDA) on 25.05.2018, which was encashed by the O.P. on 02.06.2018. Thereafter, the O.P. (CDA) issued a notice to the petitioner vide its letter No.17782 dated 10.12.2018 (Annexure-6) to participate in the lottery scheduled to be held on 08.01.2019 for allotment of the plots of ‘E’ Category. Accordingly, the petitioner participated in the said lottery on 08.01.2019 for the allotment of ‘E’ Category plots. In that lottery, the O.P. also allowed to participate the applicants, those had not made initial deposit. For which, the petitioner should have been treated W.P.(C) No.2601 of 2019 Page 3 of 8 separately/differently than others, those had participated in such lottery without making any initial deposit, but, whereas, the O.P. treated all applicants including the petitioner equally allowing all to participate in the said lottery process, even though, initial deposit was precondition for participation in such lottery. In that lottery, no lot was lifted in favour of the petitioner for allotment of any ‘E’ Category plot. When the petitioner became unsuccessful in such lottery, then, after completion of lottery process, he (petitioner) made a representation vide Annexure-7 before the O.P. (CDA) to consider his case separately/specially taking into account to his initial deposit i.e. Rs.40,000/-(rupees forty thousand) on dated 25.05.2018 and to allot a plot either ‘E’ or ‘D’ Category in his favour in any sector. The said representation (Annexure-7) of the petitioner is with the O.P., the same vide Annexure-7 is required to be considered liberally in favour of the petitioner. When the O.P. did not respond to the representation vide Annexure-7 of the petitioner, then, the petitioner filed this writ petition against the O.P. (CDA) praying for directing the O.P. (CDA) to allot a plot of ‘E’ or ‘D’ Category in any sector in his favour taking into account his initial deposit i.e. Rs.40,000/-(rupees forty thousand) and to dispose of his representation vide Annexure-7 in his favour. W.P.(C) No.2601 of 2019 Page 4 of 8 3. The O.P. (CDA) objected to this writ petition filed by the petitioner by filing counter affidavit taking its stands therein that, an open lottery was conducted on 08.01.2019 by the CDA (O.P.) in respect of 76 numbers of ‘E’ Category plots. The petitioner was a participant in the said open lottery process along with other applicants like him remaining present physically till the completion of the lottery process on the date fixed for such purpose, but unfortunately, he (petitioner) was found unsuccessful. After being unsuccessful in such lottery, he (petitioner) filed the present writ petition alleging various irregularities in the lottery process, even though, he (petitioner) had participated in that lottery process remaining present physically. All the applicants including the petitioner were similarly situated and all of them including the petitioner were given opportunity to participate in the lottery process. When, the petitioner along with other applicants had participated in the lottery process and when after being unsuccessful in such lottery process, he (petitioner) has challenged that lottery process, then at this juncture, the petitioner is estopped under law to challenge the lottery process. For which, there cannot be allotment of any plot in favour of the petitioner out of turn by treating him specially/differently than other unsuccessful applicants of such lottery. For which, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. W.P.(C) No.2601 of 2019 Page 5 of 8 4. 5. I have already heard from the learned counsels of both the sides. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, he should have been treated separately/differently than other applicants/participants of the lottery process on the ground that, he had made the initial deposit i.e. Rs.40,000/-(rupees forty thousand). 6. The petitioner has not been able to show about the participation of other applicants in the lottery process without making any initial deposit as well as any lesser treatment to the petitioner than other participants of such lottery process. 7. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, the petitioner had participated in the lottery process along with other applicants for allotment of 76 numbers of ‘E’ Category plots, which was held by the CDA on dated 08.01.2019 and the petitioner had become unsuccessful in that lottery, because no lottery was lifted in his favour in that lottery process and after being failure in such lottery process, he (petitioner) has filed this writ petition challenging the selection process. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Smt. Sebati Patra and State of Orissa and others reported in 2016 (I) OLR 76, once a candidate has participated in the selection process, she cannot challenge the same. W.P.(C) No.2601 of 2019 Page 6 of 8 (ii) In a case between Jayantibala Pati Vrs. The Addl. District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur and others reported in 2016 (2) O.J.R. (399), participation in selection without any objection. Subsequently, objection raised. The selection of other candidate cannot be challenged subsequently unless it has been challenged initially. (iii) In a case between Vijendra Kumar Verma Vrs. Public Service Commissioner, Uttarakhand & others reported in 2010 (2) O.J.R. (S.C) 750, the candidate, who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein is not entitled to question the same. (iv) In a case between D. Sarojakumari Vrs. R. Helen Thilakom and Ors. reported in 2017 (3) CCC 526 (SC), a candidate appearing in selection process is estopped from challenging the selection process. 8. Here in this matter at hand, when the petitioner had participated in the process of selection for allotment of 76 numbers of ‘E’ Category plots through open lottery process held by the CDA (O.P.) on dated 08.01.2019 and when the petitioner has challenged such selection process for allotment of ‘E’ Category plot through lottery process after being failure from such lottery, then at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, he (petitioner) is estopped under law to challenge the selection process for allotment of ‘E’ Category plot adopted by the O.P. through lottery process. 9. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same must fail. W.P.(C) No.2601 of 2019 Page 7 of 8 10. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed on contest. 11. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 03.04.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer (A.C. Behera), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Apr-2025 15:32:47 W.P.(C) No.2601 of 2019 Page 8 of 8