The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3266 of 2024 Benudhar Panda ....... Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and others ……. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. R.C. Ray, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. B. Panigrahi, Additional Standing Counsel ----- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA _______________________________________________________________ Date of Hearing and Judgment: 09.05.2024 _______________________________________________________________ S.K. MISHRA, J. 1. The Writ Petition has been preferred with a prayer to include the name of the Petitioner as a beneficiary under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) Scheme, he being found eligible to be a beneficiary under the Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY), on the ground that though Work Order dated 22.12.2007 was issued in favour of the Petitioner under the IAY by the Block Development Officer (BDO), Dharmasala, despite repeated approaches, no money was disbursed in favour of the Petitioner and (PMAY) Scheme being more beneficial, under which the beneficiary is entitled to financial assistance of W.P.(C) No. 3266 of 2024 Page 1 of 7 Rs.1,20,000/-, financial assistance under the said Scheme should be extended in favour of the Petitioner. 2. In response to the allegations made in the Writ Petition, the State has filed a Counter Affidavit taking a stand therein that in terms of the IAY, Rs.25,000/- is to be released in three phases i.e. on construction up to Plinth Level Rs.10,000/-, up to Roof level Rs.10,000/- and on completion of construction Rs.5000/-. Since the Petitioner did not construct house in terms of the said Scheme, no amount could be released in favour of him in terms of the Work Order dated 22.12.2007. So far as allegation made by the Petitioner as to syphoning the sanctioned amount by the authority, has been specifically denied in the Counter. 3. In response to the Counter, the Petitioner has filed Rejoinder Affidavit indicating therein that the said Scheme under the IAY is meant for pucca houses to SC/ST and non-SC/ST households belonging to below poverty line. If condition of making construction
Legal Reasoning
first would be the criteria to release the money under the Scheme, it would be impracticable for a poor man like the Petitioner to avail the benefit under the said Scheme, for which he could not construct the house under the IAY to claim the benefit under IAY. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner so also Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned A.S.C., who represents the State-Opposite Parties. W.P.(C) No.3266 of 2024 Page 2 of 7 5. Mr. Ray, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner being a poor person, was unable to spend in advance to construct a house in terms of the stipulations made vide Work Order dated 22.12.2007 and claim reimbursement. Mr. Ray further submitted that there is also an ambiguity in the said Work Order and the same does not reflect that the beneficiary has to construct the house under the IAY Scheme in advance in a phased manner to claim the financial assistance in terms of the said Scheme. Mr. Ray further submitted that the stand taken by the State in its Counter that sanctioned amount will be released in favour of the Petitioner in a phased manner if he completes the construction work as mentioned in the Work Order is misleading, as at present it is impracticable on the part of the Petitioner to construct a house with a paltry of Rs.25,000/- i.e. almost after about 17 years from the date of issuance of Work Order dated 22.12.2007. 6. In response to the said submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Panigrahi, learned A.S.C. for the State- Opposite Parties submitted that there is no ambiguity in the said Work Order dated 22.12.2007. The Petitioner was supposed to construct the house in a phased manner, as detailed in the Work Order dated 22.12.2007. As he failed to construct his house in terms of the said Work Order, the authority concerned was justified not to W.P.(C) No.3266 of 2024 Page 3 of 7 release the sanctioned amount in a phased manner, as was ordered by the B.D.O., Dharmasala. Mr. Panigrahi further submitted that though the PMAY Scheme is in operation, since the PMAY Inclusion List has been stopped in the meantime by the Central Government, the Petitioner has to wait for selection to be made in future for inclusion of his name in the said list, if he so desires. Inclusion of name in the list shall be subject to fresh enquiry to be made by the authority concerned for his selection, if he is found eligible. 7. In view of such submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Parties, Paragraphs 4 and 7 of the Counter, being relevant to
Decision
deal with the prayer made in the Writ Petition, are extracted below: 4. That, in reply to Paragraph 1 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner was issued with an IAY Work Order with an estimated cost Rs.25000/- vide Order No-4445 Dt-22.12.2007 and Case record No-735/07-08 with the condition that payment will be made on completion of construction in three phases such as At: Plinth Level – Rs.10,000/-, At Roof Revel – 10,000/- and on completion – Rs.5000/-. In the present case, the petitioner has not started construction of house. So no amount has been paid as per the work order. Hence, the allegation of the petitioner that there has been misappropriation is not correct and is hereby denied. It is further submitted that it is not disputed as to whether the petitioner is eligible to get the IAY. Since the petitioner was eligible to get House under IAY W.P.(C) No.3266 of 2024 Page 4 of 7 Scheme, Work Order was issued in his favour vide Annexure-1 in the year 2007, but since he had not complied the pre-conditions of worker, i.e. construction of plinth level and roof level, the sanctioned amount was not paid to him. It is pertinent to mention here that the IAY Scheme is no more available at present and the same has been withdrawn and converted to PMAY scheme. However, the "PMAY Inclusion List" has been stopped in the meantime by the Central Government. In this regard, fresh inquiry is required for selection of his name with PMAY scheme. As the petitioner didn’t avail IAY house during 2007-08, at present circumstances, he has to wait for selection to be made in future. 7. That, in reply to Paragraphs 4 to 8 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner was issued with an IAY Work Order with an estimated cost Rs.25000/- vide Order No-4445 Dt-22.12.2007 with the condition that payment will be made on completion of construction in three phases such as At: Plinth Level - Rs. 10,000/-, At Roof Level - 10,000/- and on completion - Rs.5000/-. In the present case, since the petitioner has not started construction of house, no amount has been released in his favour. Further, it is not disputed as to whether the petitioner is eligible to get the IAY. Since the petitioner was eligible to get House under IAY Scheme, Work Order was issued in his favour vide Annexure-1 in the year 2007, but since he had not complied the pre- conditions of work order, i.e. construction of plinth level and roof level, the sanctioned amount was not paid to him. The petitioner without starting constructions as per the preconditions of the work order W.P.(C) No.3266 of 2024 Page 5 of 7 vide Annexure-1 is running from pillar to post and approached MLA and Minster for releasing of fund. Had the petitioner completed constructions as per the conditions of the work order, the sectioned amount would have been released in his favour. However, the sanctioned amount as per the work order vide Annexure-1 issued in the year 2007 will be released in favour of the petitioner in phase manner, if he completes construction of house as mentioned in the work order.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. Admittedly, the IAY is no more in operation and at present, the PMAY Scheme is in vogue. However, as stated in the Counter, the "PMAY Inclusion List" has been stopped in the meantime by the Central Government. The Petitioner could not avail IAY house during 2007-08 despite issuance of Work Order with an estimated cost Rs.25,000/- vide Order No.4445 dated 22.12.2007 because of his financial constraint to construct the house first and then claim the installments in a phased manner, as detailed above. 9. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that it is almost impossible and impracticable to construct a house at present i.e. almost after about 17 years of issuance of Work Order No.4445 dated 22.12.2007, with an estimated cost Rs.25,000/- to claim the sanctioned amount of Rs.25,000/-. Hence, liberty is given to the Petitioner to apply under the PMAY Scheme for inclusion of his name in terms of the guidelines under the said Scheme, as and when the W.P.(C) No.3266 of 2024 Page 6 of 7 selection process to include the name of beneficiary starts next by the Central Government. If the Petitioner so applies, the same shall be accepted and processed immediately without any delay, preferably within a period of three months from the date of submitting the said application and result thereof be made known to him within the said period. 10. In addition to the above, taking in to consideration the plight of the Petitioner, as detailed in the Writ Petition, so also report of the authority concerned and order passed by the Block Development Office, Dharmasala at Annexure-3, as to eligibility of the Petitioner, it is made clear that the Petitioner may also apply for financial assistance for construction of house under any other scheme, if any, which is in vogue or to be floated in near future by the State Government, for inclusion of his name as a beneficiary, if he is found eligible under the said scheme. 11. With the said observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 12. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application as per rules. Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated, 9th May, 2024/Padma Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PADMA CHARAN DASH Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2024 11:15:56 (S.K. MISHRA) JUDGE W.P.(C) No.3266 of 2024 Page 7 of 7