The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 12371 of 2023 Haripriya Patel … Petitioner Mr. Anurag Pati, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others … Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Advocate CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No.
Decision
ORDER 02.05.2023 01. 1. The question as to where the headquarters of the Western Odisha Development Council (WODC) must be located is the subject of the present petition. Earlier the Petitioner had approached this Court with W.P.(C) No.4263 of 2021 which was disposed of by an order dated 13th December, 2022 requiring the Chief Secretary, Odisha to treat the said writ petition as a representation and after giving the Petitioner a hearing, to pass a reasoned order. 2. The Chief Secretary has complied with the above direction and passed a reasoned order on 23rd February, 2023 after consultation with the WODC, which included ten Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) and two Members of Parliament (MPs) of the Western Odisha districts. It appears from the said order of the Chief Secretary, Odisha which has been challenged in the present Page 1 of 5 petition, that the Members of the WODC “could not reach a decision in the matter of specific location in the Council area” and resolved that ‘the Government may be requested to continue the status quo for a period of three years till a consensus emerges.” 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner refers to Section 3(4) of the Western Odisha Development Council Act, 2000 (‘WODC Act’) which mandates as under: “3. xx xx xx 4. The headquarters of the Council shall be at such a place within the Council area as may be notified in the Gazette by the Government in consultation with Council which shall meet for the purpose at such place as the Government may fix.” 4. Mr. Anurag Pati, learned counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, urges that the Government of Odisha, having already consulted the WODC should now notify the precise place where the headquarters of the WODC will be located. He points out that the present headquarters which is at Bhubaneswar would be inconvenient for the representatives and members of the WODC and if it is continued at Bhubaneswar, the purpose of the statute would also be defeated. 5. Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) submits that the very object of Section 3(4) of the WODC Act was to ensure that the decision to locate the headquarters of WODC is arrived at by consensus. According to him, since no such consensus at present is able to be arrived at, the WODC has Page 2 of 5 decided to continue the status quo for a period of three years from the date of the meeting. 6. The impugned order of the Chief Secretary tellingly notes: “the location of the headquarters of WODC has been an emotive issue”. The WODC, in terms of Section 3(1) of the WODC Act, is representative of the districts of Bargarh, Bolangir, Boudh, Deogarh, Jharsuguda, Kalahandi, Nuapada, Sambalpur, Sonepur and Sundargarh and “any other areas may be prescribed”. Under Section 4 of the WODC Act, the WODC consists of (a) two Members of the Lok Sabha representing any constituency within the council area, to be nominated by the Government on rotational basis, (b) eleven Members of the Odisha Legislative Assembly elected from any constituency within the council area again to be nominated by the Government on rotational basis and (c) ten experts to be nominated by the Government from amongst persons with special knowledge of Planning, Finance and Accounts of Government or wide experience in Public Administration and Social Service or special knowledge in different fields as specified therein. The Revenue Divisional Commissioner of the Division “under which the maximum portion of the Council Area situated” and the Chief Executive Officer (who is also to be its Member Secretary) are also a part of the WODC. 7. From the impugned order of the Chief Secretary, it appears that in compliance with Section 3(4) of the WODC Act, the CEO of the WODC was asked to apprise the meeting of the latest Page 3 of 5 developments regarding fixation of the headquarters of the WODC. It is seen that the Petitioner was insisting on location of the headquarters at Sambalpur which is the biggest town in Western Odisha, whereas the WODC at a meeting held on 30th December, 2022 could not arrive at any decision regarding fixation of the headquarters. It appears that the MLAs of Bargarh, Deogarh, Khariar and Patnagarh suggested that it should be established “at their respective district headquarters”. It was generally acknowledged that no consensus could be arrived at on the issue and so “the Council resolved continue with the decision taken in the Council Meeting held on 27th December, 2021” regarding fixation of the headquarters of WODC. Even at that meeting the said consensus was unable to be arrived at. Accordingly, it was decided that the Government should be requested to continue “the status quo for a period of three years till a consensus emerges”. 8. This Court cannot possibly compel the Government to locate the headquarters in a particular place within the WODC area. It appears that the said decision in terms of Section 3(4) of the WODC Act can only be in consultation with WODC. If those comprising the WODC viz., the MLAs and MPs are themselves not able to agree upon any particular place for locating the headquarters, it cannot be expected that the Government will overlook their request for continuation of the status quo and unilaterally decide to locate the headquarters in a place of its choice. The legislative intent which informs Section 3 (4) of the WODC Act is that the views of the WODC as regards the location Page 4 of 5 of the headquarters should not be ignored. Given the above developments and given the legislative intent behind Section 3(4) of the WODC Act, the Court is unable to hold that the impugned decision of the Chief Secretary dated 23rd February, 2023 calls for interference. 9. It is clarified that it will be open to the Petitioner to pursue the cause closer to the expiry of the period of three years, during which the status quo has been requested to continue. 10. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. Chief Justice (Dr. S. Muralidhar) (G. Satapathy) Judge S.K. Jena/Secy. SANJAY KUMAR JENA Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR JENA Date: 2023.05.03 14:12:27 +05'30' Page 5 of 5