The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Apr-2024 18:08:50 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). NO.8913 OF 2023 (An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Manoranjan Sahoo ***** -versus- … Petitioner State of Odisha and others … Opp. Parties Advocate for the Parties : For Petitioner : Mr. Alok Kumar Panda, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM:
Decision
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Heard and disposed of on 16.04.2024 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T 1. 2. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction to the Director, Odisha Urban Housing Mission, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.3 to allot Quarter No.29 at Labour Tenement Colony, Charbatia in his favour. 3. Mr. Panda, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner was an employee erstwhile Odisha Textile Mills (OTM) at Choudwar. The employees of OTM were allotted quarters at Labour Tenement Colony, Charbatia, Choudwar. The Petitioner was allotted with Quarter No.29 in the said colony. The Petitioner took voluntary W.P.(C). No.8913 of 2023 Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Apr-2024 18:08:50 retirement under Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) with effect from 31st October, 2001. The OTM became sick and was closed down. But the Petitioner and other employees continued to stay in their allotted quarters. When the matter stood thus, the Government took a decision to allot the quarter to the Allottees of the employees of erstwhile OTM. Since the Petitioner was allotted with Quarter No.29, he also made an application along with the documents available with him. Upon receipt of the application, verification of documents was made and a list was prepared under Annexure-4. But, the name of the Petitioner did not find place in the said list. It is submitted that the Petitioner has been paying water tax, electricity bills and holding tax etc. in respect of the quarter he is occupying. He, therefore, made a representation to Opposite Party No.3 on 27th January, 2023 (Annexure-5) for allotment of the quarter in his occupation. But the same was not paid any heed. Hence, he has filed this writ petition. 4. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that documents annexed to the counter affidavit at Annexure-A/3 reflects the name of the Petitioner in category ‘B’. As per the averment in the counter affidavit, there are 228 numbers of tenements. 116 numbers of Allottee/occupants in respect of whom original files and allotment orders are available, found place in ‘A’ category list at Annexure-4. Name of the Petitioner found place at Annexure-A/3 (list of ‘B’ category) of the counter affidavit alleging that neither the original files nor the allotment orders of those Allottees are available. Only one person found place in the category ‘C’ who is a stranger. It is submitted that the allotment order number and date of the Petitioner finds place in the list under Annexure-A/3. W.P.(C). No.8913 of 2023 Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Apr-2024 18:08:50 It is categorically stated that at Column-3 of the said list that the Petitioner was with Quarter No.29 vide order No.14782 dated 30th October, 1986. Thus, the plea that original file of the allotment in respect of the Petitioner was not available with the authority was not correct. A close reading of the lists contained under Annexures-4 and A/3 would go to show that there are lots of discrepancies in the information provided therein. Some of the discrepancies have been explained by the Petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit filed in Court today. He, therefore, submits that the verification was not conducted properly for which the Petitioner has been deprived of being allotted with the quarter. Hence, he prays for a direction for fresh scrutiny of the documents by the authority giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 4.1 He further prays that the Petitioner should be allotted with quarter No.29 forthwith in view of the information with regard to his allotment being available at Annexure-A/3. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel objecting to such submission stated that the allotment number and date given in Annexure-A/3 against the Petitioner is erroneous, as the Petitioner was not in service on 30th October, 1986. There might be some discrepancies in preparing the list, but Allottees under Annexure-4 being not made parties to the writ petition, the same is not open to be scrutinized or verified. 5.1 He further submits that the Petitioner has come with a specific prayer that Quarter No.29 at Labour Tenement Colony, Charbatia, Choudwar should be allotted in his favour. The cause of action for allotment of said quarter has not yet arisen, as it is W.P.(C). No.8913 of 2023 Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Apr-2024 18:08:50 categorically explained in the counter affidavit that the name of the Petitioner falls in the list of Category ‘B’ and no decision whatsoever has been taken in respect of the said list. When the turn of the Petitioner along with other Allottees under ‘B’ category will come, the case of the Petitioner may be considered. He, therefore, submits that this writ petition should be dismissed. 6. Taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, more particularly the submission of Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the verification of records of the Allottee is erroneous and warrants a fresh appraisal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Allottee under category ‘A’ (Annexure-4) are not made parties to the writ petition. Thus, it would not be proper to issue a direction to reopen the matter and test the veracity of the list under Annexure-4 at this stage, more particularly when no such prayer is made in the writ petition. 7. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, submits that he may be permitted to amend the writ petition suitably to assail the correctness of allotment under Annexure-4. This Court is not inclined to entertain such prayer for the reason that the Petitioner has approached this Court with a specific prayer to allot Quarter No.29 in his favour. The correctness of the allotment order under Annexure-4 is not in question in this writ petition. The Allottees whose name finds place in the said list are not made parties to this writ petition. Thus, at the stage of hearing of the writ petition, it would not be proper for this Court to adjourn the matter further for amendment of this writ petition. W.P.(C). No.8913 of 2023 Page 4 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Apr-2024 18:08:50 8. Admittedly, the Petitioner was not in service in the year 1986, in which year the allotment was shown to be made in favour of the Petitioner in the list under Annexure-A/3. Thus, the number and date of the allotment order as reflected in Annexure-A/3 appears to be erroneous. 9. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly concedes that no allotment order was being issued by the Management of the erstwhile OTM to the employees, who occupied their respective quarters after 1990. Hence, the Petitioner was not issued with any such allotment order. 10. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that no illegality has been committed in placing name of the Petitioner under Annexure-A/3. When a verification is being conducted, there might be some discrepancies in reflecting the details of the Allottee in the lists under Annexures-4 and A/3. But, the fact remains that the Petitioner does not have the original allotment order in his favour. Thus, no illegality has been committed in placing the name of the Petitioner in category ‘B’ list at Annexure-A/3. 11. Category ‘B’ list at Annexure-A/3, in which the name of the Petitioner finds place, has not yet been taken into consideration. Thus, cause of action for filing of the writ petition has not yet been arisen. Admittedly, the name of the Petitioner finds place under category ‘B’ list under Annexure-A/3. As stated in the counter affidavit, when the turn for consideration of names of Category ‘B’ list will come, the case of the Petitioner is expected to be considered. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the authorities, namely, Opposite Party No.3 while W.P.(C). No.8913 of 2023 Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Apr-2024 18:08:50 issuing allotment orders should take due care and caution by verifying the records and information available. In the facts ans circumstances, there shall be no order as to 13. cost. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 16th Day of April, 2024/ Rojalin W.P.(C). No.8913 of 2023 Page 6 of 6