The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.941 of 2025 Satyabhama Devi Welfare Trust, Bhubaneswar …. Appellant Represented by Adv.– Mr. Colin Gonsalvas, Senior Advocate Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Respondent Represented by Adv.– Mr. K.C. Kar, Government Advocate CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. 01. I.A. No.2891 of 2025
Decision
ORDER 24.06.2025 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 12 days in preferring the main appeal against an order dated 11th March, 2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.6457 of 2025. 2. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State- opposite parties opposes the application for condonation of delay. 3. After perusal of the averments made in paragraphs-2 and 3 of the I.A., we find that the appellant was prevented by a sufficient Page 1 of 6 cause in not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation provided therefor. Accordingly, the delay in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. 4. The I.A. is accordingly allowed. W.A. No.941 of 2025 5. By the consent of the respective counsels, the present appeal is taken up for hearing. 6. By the impugned order dated 11th March, 2025, the writ petition filed by the appellant is dismissed with the following observations: “1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the letter dated 26.11.2024 issued by the Rent Officer, G.A and P.G. (Rent) Department, Bhubaneswar under Annexure-6 and the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government G.A. and P.G. Department, Bhubaneswar under Annexure-9. 3. Heard learned counsels for the Parties. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was allotted a Government premises (quarter) Page 2 of 6 VR-56 in Unit-VI, in the New Capital which was provisionally allotted in favour of Managing Trustee, Satyabhama Devi Welfare Trust, Bhubaneswar for functioning of the +2 College for Hearing Impaired students for a period of one year subject to renewal on payment of standard rent as applicable from time to time per month. 5. However, the Petitioner/Trust had started admitting +3 students which was not permissible in the allotment letter dated 06.01.2016 issued by the Additional Director of Estates-cum-Joint Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, Government of Odisha. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner approached the Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration and Public Grievance, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar by filing a representation for continuation of the allotment of the quarter No.VR-56, Unit-VI, Bhubaneswar in favour of his trust for imparting +3 courses for Hearing Impaired students. However, the said authority had rejected the representation made by the present Petitioner through order dated 17.02.2025. The relevant portion of the order dated 17.02.2025 issued by the Rent Officer, G.A and P.G. (Rent) Department, Bhubaneswar is extracted hereinbelow: Page 3 of 6 “XXX After carefully going through the connected documents and understanding the flow of events, 1 found that the +2 wing of this college has been shifted to the own building of Satyabhama Devi Welfare trust, constructed at Gothapatna over the land provided by the Government in Revenue & Disaster Management Department. At present, +3 Degree College is functioning in the said Government quarters in deviation of the original purpose of allotment. It is complete violation on the part of Satyabhama Devi Welfare Trust, to run +3 College at the sald Government quarters. When the Trust opened +3 College, it was its responsibility to arrange space/ accommodation for functioning of the said College. The Government quarters was allotted for a temporary period for functioning of +2 College, not the +3 College. Further, the term of license of the quarters allotted to the Trust expired on 05.01.2017 and since then the Trust has not applied for renewal of license and has been unauthorizedly occupying in the said quarters. Hence, I am satisfied that the present representation filed by the Menaging Trustee, Satvabhama Devi Welfare Trust, for retention Page 4 of 6 of Government quarters No. 56, Type- VR, Unit-VI, Bhubaneswar, is without merit and, therefore, rejected.” 7. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer made in the present Writ Petition. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.” 7. The order as reproduced hereinabove does not appear to have contained any independent finding by the single Bench in arriving at the ultimate decision of dismissal of the writ petition. 8. In the adversarial system of adjudication, the importance of providing the reason is indispensable. A litigant has a right to know the reason for negation of his claim. It is a foremost duty of the Court while adjudicating the rival claims of the parties to record the independent finding on each and every issue so raised. The reason is thus regarded as a heart and soul of an order, without which, it cannot survive. The reason further provides an opportunity to the higher forum to decide the appeal and the points so involved therein, more particularly, what swayed the mind of the learned Judge while rejecting the prayer. It further augments the transparency and the fairness in adjudicatory process and the litigant would be benefited Page 5 of 6 with the reason made in his favour or against him. The order bereft of reason is always regarded as no order in the eye of law. 9. Solely on the ground that the order lacks reason far to speak of a proper reason, the same cannot be sustained. The order impugned in the instant appeal is hereby set aside. The writ petition is restored to its original file and number. We request the learned Single Judge to rehear the said writ petition and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. 10. None of the observations made hereinabove shall be construed to have any impact on the merit of the writ petition as this Court has no occasion to go into the above aspect and the impugned order is interfered with solely on the ground that it lacks reasons. 11. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. Chief Justice (Harish Tandon) Judge S.K. Guin/PA (M.S. Raman) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2025 12:11:07 Page 6 of 6