The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9054 of 2025 Lilima Behera & others …. Petitioners Mr. S.B. Mohanty, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER 16.09.2025 Order No. 02. 1. Through the matter is not listed today, on being
Legal Reasoning
mentioned by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is taken up on Board by a Special Notice. 2. Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State. 3. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 19th March, 2025 as at Annexure-5 of opposite party No.1 on the grounds stated. 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the relief and restoration with reshuffle of the projects is required to be considered in accordance with the Guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Disaster Management Division), a copy of which is at Annexure-1 series issued in terms of the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to Page 1 of 6 as ‘the Act’). The further submission is that while taking decision and considering the representation of the petitioners pursuant to Court’s order in W.P.(C) No.843 of 2025, opposite party No.1 has not taken judicial notice of the Guidelines and the provisions of the Act and instead considered the relief to be granted to the affected persons following the procedure of the Odisha Relief Code claiming to have received reports on actual damage. According to Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel, an extensive exercise is needed with the inclusion of other projects and participation of the concerned G.Ps so as to enable them to put forth respective grievances but instead, opposite party No.1 by following the Odisha Relief Code confined it to the damage, relief and restoration of certain projects, hence, therefore, there is no full compliance of the Court’s direction in W.P.(C) No.843 of 2025 and thus, the decision as per Annexure-5 is required to be interfered with followed by consequential directions issued. 5. Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State, on the other hand, submits that the actual damage was required to be received and it was an exercise following the Odisha Relief Code and not only includes relief granted to the affected persons but also restoration of the projects approved and therefore, no wrong or illegality has been committed by opposite party No.1 in passing the impugned order dated 19th March, 2025 at Annexure-5 duly complying the Court’s direction in W.P.(C) No.843 of 2025. 6. In course of hearing, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a demand for a detailed exercise for Page 2 of 6 relief and restoration is claimed and it ought to have been taken cognizance of by opposite party No.1 in terms of the provisions of the Act keeping in view the Guidelines of State Disaster Response Fund and National Disaster Response Fund as at Annexure-1 series. 7. This Court, on a reading of the impugned order dated 19th March, 2025 at Annexure-5, finds that the proposal was received from the district including Simulia Block and taking into account, the actual damage report and upon receiving the recommendation of the field officers of the local authority as reported by the concerned BDO and Collector of the district, the decision was taken to grant relief and to carry out the damage restoration in respect of the projects affected on account of cyclone ‘DANA’. 8. The submission of Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State is that the Odisha Relief Code exhaustibility deal with relief and restoration and refers to para-76 & 77 of the said Code. 9. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions are referred to hereinabove are reproduced below. “76. Submission of preliminary flood damage report. (1) The Collector as well as the district level officers under each Department of Government shall immediately after assessment of flood damage forward a copy of to their report to their immediate Head of Department. The district level officers may also supply reports to the Collector: (2) The Heads of Departments after necessary scrutiny shall forward their reports to their respective Departments of Government with copy to the Board of Revenue / Special Relief Commissioner, not later than two weeks from the date of abatement of flood. Page 3 of 6 (3) The Special Relief Commissioner, shall compile the State; report and shall furnish the consolidated preliminary report to the Revenue Department within a week of the receipt of the reports from the Heads of Department. (4) The preliminary flood damage report should be prepared as accurately as possible, as the relief measures, if any, are to be based on the merit and statistical data of that report. 77. Submission of final flood damage report. (1) The concerned Heads of Departments as well as the Collector shall take immediate steps to compile the final report on flood damage in the formats prescribed in Appendix - X soon after submission of the preliminary report. Accidental errors, clerical mistakes, shortcomings, if any, noticed should be rectified in the final report. The final report shall be made available to the Board of Revenue’ I Special Relief Commissioner as soon as possible and not later than one month from the date of abatement of flood. (2) On receipt of the reports from the different sources, the Board of Revenue I Special Relief Commissioner shall forthwith compile the State report and furnish requisite number of copies to the Revenue Department. (3) The Board of Revenue / Special Relief Commissioner may require the Deputy Director Map Publication for preparation of a flood map on the data to be furnished by’ it approximately in the scale of 1" to 16 miles and attach the same to, the final report. The Board of Revenue / Special Relief Commissioner may also take steps for printing of additional copies of the map for supplying to the Government of India and others.” 10. No doubt, to deal with relief and restoration, the above provisions have been made and apparently, opposite party No.1 in exercise of authority and following the procedure stipulated therein accepted the approved proposal and decided to go for restoration besides granting relief to the affected persons. So far as the plea for reshuffle of the projects, restoration and rehabilitation etc. as provided in the Guidelines at Annexure-1 series issued by the Government of India as per and in terms of the Act, this Court is of the view that the same ought to have been duly examined, while considering the grievance of the Page 4 of 6 petitioners in respect of Simulia Block. In fact, the direction by this Court in W.P.(C) No.843 of 2025 was to consider the representation of the petitioners to review, modify and reshuffle the proposed projects under Simulia Tahasil. It is claimed that the Guidelines of the Government of India have not been duly followed and the exercise of opposite party No.1 is rather in contravention thereof. 11. Having regard to the provisions of the Act and in particular, Sections 36, 39 and 41, the local authorities should be consulted for the purpose of rehabilitation and restoration. It to reiterate that the exercise has to be all-embracing and according to the provisions of the Act and the same is to be scrupulously followed read with the Guidelines as per Annexure-1 series. On a bare reading of Annexure-5, this Court finds that there has been no decision on reshuffle of the projects as has been pleaded by the petitioners and that apart, the exercise is only confined to grant of relief and restoration of the projects already approved. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the conclusion that opposite party No.1 failed in duty to consider the grievance of the petitioners as a whole in terms of the Guidelines of the Government of India and in accordance with the provisions of the Act and therefore, the decision needs a revisit. It is further concluded that not only the relief and restoration is necessary but also opposite party No.1 is required to consider rehabilitation as well undertaking a fulsome exercise according to law. So, therefore, in the humble view of the Court, the impugned order dated 19th March, 2025 at Annexure-5 is liable to be interfered with followed by Page 5 of 6 direction to opposite party No.1 to deal with the representation of the petitioners in accordance with Annexure-1 series and as per the Act but within a stipulated period. 12. Accordingly, it is ordered. 13. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 19th March, 2025 at Annexure-5 is hereby set aside vis-a-vis Simulia Block under Simulia Tahasil. Consequently, opposite party No.1 is directed to reconsider the representation of the petitioners and to undertake a detailed exercise including any such left out projects to be included with a reshuffle and to consider the relief, rehabilitation, restoration etc. as per and in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in terms of the Guidelines issued as per Annexure-1 series thereby concluding the above exercise as soon as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 14. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Rojina Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 17-Sep-2025 18:29:29 Page 6 of 6