The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18030 of 2023 Premlal Naik & Others …. Petitioners Ms. S. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, AGA Mr. S. Sarangi, Sr. Adv. for O.P. Nos. 4 to 8 along with Mr. A.K. Nayak, Adv. CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 07.10.2024 09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging the Notification dtd.22.05.2023 so passed by the Government in the Panchayat Raj and D.W. Department vide Notification dtd.22.05.2023 under Annexure-10. Vide the said Notification, it was decided to fix the headquarter of Bhainsal Gram Panchayat under Nuapada Block in Nuapda District at village Bhainsal in the limit of the said Gram from the date of receipt of the Notification. // 2 // 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 22.09.2016 in W.P.(C) No.11808 of 2016 under Annexure- 2, Govt.-Opposite Party No.1 vide order dtd.11.11.2016 under Annexure-2 decided to fix the headquarter of Gram Panchayat at village Baloda for administrative convenience instead of village Bhainsal.
Legal Reasoning
challenge before this Court in W.P.(C) No.22031 of 2018, but this Court while disposing W.P.(C) No.22031 of 2018 vide order dtd.24.01.2019 under Annexure-3, never interfered with the same and instead permitted the Petitioners therein to approach the competent authority by making a fresh representation. 4.2. It is contended that pursuant to the said order the representation in question though was made by the Petitioners, but the same was made by using the writing pad of the then MLA, Nuapada under Annexure-4. 4.3. It is contended that in consideration of the said representation submitted under Annexure-4 and basing on the report, when it was decided to have the head quarter of Gram Panchayat at Bhainsal in place of Baloda contrary to the order issued by the Govt. on 11.11.2016 under Annexure-2, the report so prepared was challenged before this Court once again in W.P.(C) No.22484 of 2022. Page 2 of 10 // 3 // 4.4. It is contended that the said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dtd.17.10.2022 inter alia with the following direction:- “6. It is, at this stage, considering the series of writ petitions disposed of in the meantime vide W.P.(C) No.11808 of 2016, W.P.(C) No.4592 of 2017, W.P.(C) No.22031 of 2018 and two writ petitions pending herein taken up together vide W.P.(C) No.13895 of 2019 and W.P.(C) 22484 of 2022, this Court finds, there cannot be any denial to the fact that the present Petitioners have stake in the decision involving the field inquiry and in the interest of justice, if at all there was direction for field inquiry involving the location of the Gram Panchayat headquarters, the Petitioners herein ought to have been involved in the process of field inquiry. As this Court finds, the field report at Annexure-9 has been prepared without involving the present Petitioners, the field report vide Annexure-9 ought to be interfered with. This Court here records the admission by all the counsel that there is no construction of Gram Panchayat headquarters as of now. This Court, accordingly, interfering in the field report at Annexure-9, sets aside the same and remits the matter to the Opposite Party No.1 to conduct the desired field inquiry with the involvement of the Petitioners as well as the interveners involved herein. In the process of filed inquiry, to avoid any further litigation to this Court, this Court hopes and expects, while conducting the filed inquiry the authority shall also give a general notice through the Panchayat Office Notice Board thereby inviting application / objections, if any, by any other interested party and thereafter shall proceed to complete the proceeding by involving all such objectors and if required, further also convening a “Grama Sava” in that regard in the locality”. 4.5. It is contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 17.10.2024 in W.P.(C) No.22484 of 2022, notices were issued to all concerned by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-8 and in presence of the members who were so noticed under Annexure-8, a fresh decision Page 3 of 10 // 4 // was taken in the proceeding of the meeting held by the Gram Panchayat on 08.02.2023 under Annexure-9. 4.6. It is contended that in the said proceeding out of the 25 numbers of members who remained present in terms of the notice issued under Annexure-8, 14 persons preferred to have the head quarter at village Baloda and 10 numbers of members present, to have the head quarter at village Bhainsal. 4.7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that on the face of the decision taken in the proceeding of the meeting of the Gram Panchayat on dtd. 08.02.2023 under Annexure-9, when the impugned notification was issued on 22.05.2023 under Annexure-10 by the Government directing the Head Quarter to be at village Bhainsal, the present Writ Petition was filed challenging the same. 4.8. It is contended that this Court while issuing notice of the matter vide order dtd.06.06.2023, passed an interim order staying the operation of the said notification issued under Annexure-10. 4.9. It is contended that in terms of the said interim order no further action has been taken to construct the head quarter of the Gram Panchayat in village Bhainsal as on date. 4.10. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that since the order passed by the Govt.-Opposite Party No.1 Page 4 of 10 // 5 // on 11.11.2016 pursuant to the order dtd.22.09.2016 in W.P.(C) No.11808 of 2016 was never interfered with by this Court while disposing W.P.(C) No.22031 of 2018 vide order dtd.24.01.2019, the impugned notification could not have been issued. 4.11. It is also contended that pursuant to the subsequent order passed by this Court on 17.10.2022 since 25 members were noticed by the Collector to remain present for a fresh enquiry and out of 25 members, 14 members supported the headquarter of the Gram Panchayat to be at village Baloda and 10 of the members supported village Bhainsal, on the face of such decision taken in the proceeding of the Gram Panchayat Meeting held on dtd.08.02.2023 under Annexure-9, the impugned notification could not have been issued by the Government. It is also contended that since the earlier notification issued on 11.11.2016 was never interfered with by this Court while disposing W.P.(C) No.11808 of2016, the said notification has got its force as on date. It is accordingly contented that the impugned notification dtd.22.05.2023, so issued under Annexure-10 is liable for interference of this Court. 5. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opposite Party No.1. Though it is not Page 5 of 10 // 6 // disputed that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.11808 of 2016, notification dtd.11.11.2016 was issued by the Government in the Panchayati Raj Department directing the head quarter of the Gram Panchayat to be at village Baloda, but it is contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 17.10.2022 in W.P.(C) No.22484 of 2022, Collector- Opposite Party No.2 submitted a report on 04.04.2023 under Annexure-A/1 to the counter, recommending therein to have the head quarter of the Gram Panchayat at village Bhainsal. Basing on the report submitted by the Collector-Opposite Party No.2 on 04.04.2023 under Annexure-A/1, Govt. decided to have the head quarter of the Gram Panchayat at village Bhainsal and issued the impugned notification under Annexure-10. 5.1. It is contended that Collector, Nuapada-Opposite Party No.2 vide letter dtd.04.04.2023 under Annexure- A/1 clearly recommended to have the headquarter of the Gram Panchayat at village Bhainsal in place of village Baloda. 5.2. It is contended that since Collector, Nuapada recommended to have the head quarter at Village Bhainsal and accordingly the notification under Annexure-10 was issued, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the same. Page 6 of 10 // 7 // 6. Mr. S.K. Sarangi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private Opposite Party Nos.4 to 8 along with Mr. A.K. Nayak, learned counsel contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.11816 of 2016 though vide notification dtd.11.11.2016, Govt. decided to have the head quarter at village Baloda, but in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.22301 of 2018 and the representation made under Annexure-4 and subsequent order passed on 17.10.2022 in W.P.(C) No.22484 of 2022, a fresh report was prepared as directed and basing on the report so prepared, Collector-Opposite Party No.2 in his report dtd.04.04.2023 under Annexure-A/1 recommended to have the head quarter in village Bhainsal. 6.1. It is contended that since in terms of the report prepared basing on the order passed by this Court on 17.10.2022, Opposite Party No.2 recommended to have the head quarter at village Bhainsal, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned notification. 6.2. It is also contended that because of the subsequent order passed by this Court on 17.10.2022 the order passed by the Government on 11.11.2016 has lost its force. It is accordingly contended that no interference is called for. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found Page 7 of 10 // 8 // that challenging the order of the Govt. to have the head quarter at Bhainsal, W.P.(C) No.11808 of 2016 was filed. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 22.09.2016 under Annexure-2, Govt.-Opposite Party No.1 decided to have the headquarter at village Baloda vide Notification dtd.11.11.2016 under Annexure-2. Even though the Notification dtd.11.11.2016 was challenged in W.P.(C) No.11808 of 2016, but Notification dtd.11.11.2016 was never quashed or interfered with by this Court. This Court only granted liberty to the Petitioners therein to make a fresh representation and for its consideration. As found such a representation was made by the Petitioners of W.P.(C) No.11808 of 2016 by using the writing pad of the then MLA, Nuapada under Annexure-4. 7.1. Basing on such representation, when a report was prepared for construction of the head quarter at Bhainsal, the same was challenged by the present petitioners in W.P.(C) No.22484 of 2022. This Court vide order dtd.17.10.2022 directed the Opposite Parties to cause a fresh field enquiry and to proceed to complete the process. 7.2. Basing on the said order, notices were issued under Annexure-8 on 01.12.2022 and pursuant to the said notice in the proceeding of the meeting of the Gram Panchayat dtd.08.02.2023 so available under Annexure- Page 8 of 10 // 9 // 9, 14 out of 25 members presented in the field enquiry supported the headquarter of the Gram Panchayat to be at village Baloda and 10 of the Members supported the same to be at village Bhainsal. But on the face of such decision available under Annexure-9, which was prepared in terms of the order passed by this Court on 17.10.2022, basing on the report submitted by the Collector on 04.04.2023 under Annexure-A/1 to the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.1, the impugned notification was issued under Annexure-10, to have the head quarter of the Gram Panchayat at village Bhainsal. 7.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, it is the view of this Court that the matter requires a fresh consideration by the Government-Opposite Party No.1. Therefore, this Court while setting aside the impugned notification dtd.22.05.2023 so issued under Annexure-10 remits the matter to Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision with regard to have the head quarter of Bhainsal Gram Panchayat. This Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners and private Opposite Parties. 7.4. It is however observed that while taking such a decision, relevancy and effect of the Notification issued on 11.11.2016 under Annexure-2 and the decision taken in the proceeding of the meeting dtd.08.02.2023 under Page 9 of 10 // 10 // Annexure-9, shall be taken into consideration in its proper perspective. Such a fresh decision be taken within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. Interim order passed by this Court shall continue, till a fresh decision is taken by the Government as directed.
Arguments
4.1. It is contended that even though the order passed by the Government on 11.11.2016 was the subject matter of
Decision
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 08-Oct-2024 16:50:29 Page 10 of 10