The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Aug-2024 17:50:22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 35819 OF 2023 Dilip Kumar Behera …. Petitioner Mr. Subrat Kumar Sahu, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Amiya Kumar Mishra, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 01.08.2024 5. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction to consider his representation dated 9th August, 2023 (Annexure-9) for allotment of a stall in Block Office Market Complex, Semiliguda. 3. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner was running a coffee shop in Block Office Market Complex, Semiliguda. The Petitioner along with other shop keepers was evicted for renovation of market complex. On completion of the renovation work, the Petitioner along with others made application for allotment of shop room in newly constructed market complex. Since the Petitioner was operating a coffee shop in old market complex of Semiliguda, he was given oral assurance for allotment of a shop room. On that assurance, the Petitioner had left the shop. But, the application of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that he did not belong to Pakjola Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Aug-2024 17:50:22 Gram Panchayat under Semiliguda Block. It is his submission that the Petitioner resides at Semiliguda which comes under the Semiliguda block. Thus, rejecting his candidature on the ground that he does not belong to Pakjola G.P. is not proper. It is his submission that the applicants of other Gram Panchyats have also been considered for allotment of shop rooms. But, the Petitioner was discriminated. Hence, he submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and whimsical and is liable to be set aside. 4. It is his submission that the Voter Card of the Petitioner at Annexure-7, which was filed along his application clearly discloses that the Petitioner belongs to Pakjola G.P. Along with the Voter Card, the Petitioner had filed his Aadhaar Card along with his application for allotment of shop room. The BDO, Semiliguda only took into consideration the Aadhaar Card and the Voter Card of the Petitioner as at Annexure-7 was not taken into consideration. Had it been taken into consideration, the Petitioner would have got an opportunity to participate in drawl of lot. Thus, rejecting the candidature of the Petitioner at the threshold is illegal. He, therefore, submits that rejection of the candidature of the Petitioner being bad in law should be set aside and there should be fresh drawl of lot for allotment of shop rooms in newly constructed market complex of Semiliguda block. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate referring to the counter affidavit submits that only the candidates of Pakjola G.P. of Semiliguda block were considered for drawl Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Aug-2024 17:50:22 of lot for allotment of shop rooms in newly constructed market complex of Semiliguda block. The allegation of the Petitioner that the other villagers were allowed to take part in drawl of the lot is not correct. He refers to Annexure-B/3, wherein it appears that only five candidates, namely, Dukhiranjan Behera, Lata Bisoi, Laxmi Bisoi, Hari Jani and Rashmi Jani, who belong to Pakjola G.P. have been selected to be allotted with the shop rooms. It further appears that out of twenty candidates applied for allotment of shop rooms, candidature of the Petitioner along with one, Ashish Kumar Rath was rejected as they did not belong with Pakjola G.P. under Semiliguda block. While short listing the candidates for taking part in drawl of lot, the authority took into consideration the identity proof of the Petitioner, i.e. his Aadhaar Card submitted along with his application. Since the Petitioner belongs to Shastri Nagar of Semiliguda, his candidature was rejected as it does not come under Pakjola G.P. 6. In support of his submission, Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate refers to the letter No.7678 dated 16th December, 2023 at Annexure-F/3 issued by the Executive Officer, Sunabeda Municipality, wherein it is clarified that Shastri Nagar area of Semiliguda is coming under Ward No.18 of Sunabeda Municipality. Thus, the candidature of the Petitioner was rejected and drawl of lot was made for allotment of five shop rooms taking into consideration the candidature of applicants of Pakjola G.P. As such no illegality has been committed in rejecting the candidature of the Petitioner. Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Aug-2024 17:50:22 7. Rejoinder affidavit and reply to the same has also been filed by the respective parties. 8. Taking into consideration the rival contentions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the Petitioner had made an application for allotment of shop room in newly constructed market complex of Semiliguda block. Along with the Petitioner another nineteen persons also submitted their candidature. Out of them, candidature of the Petitioner along with one, Ashish Kumar Rath was rejected on the ground that they do not belong to Pakjola G.P. under Semiliguda block. The Petitioner refers to the Voter Card, wherein it has been stated that he belongs to Pakjola G.P. On perusal of the Voter Card at Annexure-7, it is apparent that the detailed address of the Petitioner has not been given therein. On the other hand, from the Aadhaar Card submitted by the Petitioner along with his application at Annexure-G/3, it is apparent that the Petitioner belongs to Shastri Nagar of Semiliguda. The Executive Officer of Sunabeda Municipality has clarified in his letter No.7678 dated 16th December, 2023 at Annexure-F/3 that Shastri Nagar area of Semiliguda is coming under Ward No.18 of Sunabeda Municipality. Thus, there can be no iota of doubt that Shastri Nagar, where the Petitioner is residing, does not come under Semiliguda block much less Pakjola G.P. From the cause title of the writ petition, it appears that the Petitioner is residing at Shastri Nagar of Semiliguda. 9. In view of the above, this Court finds that there is no illegality in rejecting the candidature of the Petitioner. Further it Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Aug-2024 17:50:22 is alleged that the candidature of other Gram Panchayats were taken into consideration for drawl of lot. Thus, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that drawl of lot was arbitrary and illegal. From the proceedings of drawl for allotment of shop rooms in newly constructed market complex of Semiliguda block, it appears that except the Petitioner and Ashish Kumar Rath, all other belong to Pakjola G.P. Thus, the allegation of the Petitioner is not correct. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ms (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Page 5 of 5