The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Prasanta Kumar Pradhan W.P.(C) No.35126 of 2025 …. Petitioner Mr. J. Patnaik, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. J.K. Khandayatray, ASC CORAM: Order No. 01. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
Decision
ORDER 16.12.2025 Petitioner’s representation dated 31.03.2025 at Annexure-4 reads as under: “Sir' With due deference I, Sri Prashant Ku.Pradhan would like to submit a few lines for your kind consideration, judicious decision and appropriate action. 1. That, I was the Sarapanch of Kalamba panchayat from the year 2017 to 2022. I was elected as an independent candidate. 2. That, being independently elected though I had to navigate through different political odds, still during my tenure as the Sarapancha many significant developmental works were undertaken as per the need and demand of the residents of different wards keeping in view the fund availability. 3. That, the developmental works were carried out following due procedure like panchayat Body resolution or projects sanctioned under central Finance Commission (CFC) and State Finance Commission (SFC). 4. That, the Panchayat Body in a meeting held on 2nd of Oct, 2019 had resolved to undertake a number of welfare works Page 1 of 5 including construction of a children's park on the eastern part of Maa Bhavani Playground. 5. That, though the children's park was a popular demand, still due to Corona pandemic in 2020, the will of the panchayat body expressed through the above resolution could not be translated into a complete reality in the2020-21 finance year. Many collateral constructions and installations supposed to be parts of the childrens' park were to be shifted and appropriated in the next financial year i.e 2021-2022. 6. That, under 15th CFC and 5th SFC Award for the financial year 2021-2022, the New Annual Action Plan incorporated different projects which included many works related to the children's park. 7. That, the reason and logic best known to the government, for any developmental work in a Panchayat, the work orders are issued in the name of Panchayat Executive Officer (PEO). The standard practice at that time was that the Sarapanch and the PEO used to jointly decide who would be given contract to carry out the proposed work. 8. That, the fact was that the elected Sarapanch had to play a second fiddle in the matters of development work as it was the PEO who was calling the shots due to his role in disbursement of money against any work done. Irony of the situation was that the work orders were issued under the seal and signature of the Sarapanch to the contractors or interested parties, but payment strings were in the hands of PE0 alternately known as Gram Sevak in popular parlance . 9. That, in the instant case, after proper deliberation with the PEO Sri Bhagaban Behera, different proposed works under the New Annual Action plan of Kalamba Gram Panchayat for the financial year 2021-22 were given to different persons jointly and severally on 15th of April 2021 as mentioned below: A. The work of Completion of the incomplete Park at the cost of Rs 2, 23,312/( Two Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Three Hundred Twelve Rupees only) was jointly given to Sri Pratap pradhan, S/o Sriprahalad pradhan and Sri Pravat sahu, S/o Sri Balram sahu. B. The job of Construction of BhutaKothi at the park at the cost of Rs 2, 00,000/( Two Lakh Rupees only) was given to Page 2 of 5 Sri Sukant pradhan, S/o Sri Bhagaban pradhan and Sri Pravat sahu, S/o Sri Balram sahu. C. The work of installation of Street Light at the cost of Rs 5, 00,000/( Five Lakh Rupees only) was given to Sri Pratap pradhan, S/o Sriprahalad pradhan, Sri Ramakanta sahu, S/o Sri Sujan sahu and Sri Kabiraj Sahu, S/o Late Sri Surendrasahu. D. The work of construction of a Smart Class Room in Nodal School at Kalamba at the cost of Rs 1, 50,000/( One Lakh Fifty Thousand Rupees only) was given to Sri Ramakanta sahu, S/o Sri Sujan sahu. E. The work of construction of a Gate at MaaBhabanishisuudyan at the cost of Rs 2,00,000/( Two Lakh Rupees only) was given to Sri Pratap pradhan, S/o Sri Prahalad pradhan and Sri Sudam sahu, S/o Sri Late Mochiram sahu. F. The work of construction of the Boundary Wall of Rukhakana School at Kalamba at the cost of Rs 2, 50,000/( Two Lakh Fifty Thousand Rupees only) was given to Sri Ramesh Behera, S/o Late Sri Dinabandhu Behera. G. The work of Completion of the incomplete Park at the cost of Rs 6, 23,312/( Two Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Three Hundred Twelve Rupees only) was given to Sri Pratap pradhan, S/o Sri Prahalad pradhan, Sri Ramakanta sahu, S/o Sri Sujan sahu, Sri Sudam sahu, S/o Sri Late Mochiram sahu, Sri Pravat sahu S/o Sri Balram sahu, Sri Sukant pradhan, S/o Sri Bhagaban pradhan and Ramchandra pradhan, S/o Late Sri Choria pradhan. H. The work of Installation of Drinking Water Supply Facility in the Kalamba Park at cost of Rs 2,00,000/( Two Lakh Rupees only) was given to Sri Pravatsahu S/o Sri Balramsahu and Sri Sukantpradhan, S/o Sri Bhagabanpradhan. I. The work of Installation of Drinking Water Supply Facility in the Gram Panchayat Office at cost of Rs 2,.11,656/( Two Lakh Eleven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Six Rupees only) was given to Sri Pratappradhan, S/o Sri Prahaladpradhan and Sri Pravatsahu, S/o Sri Balramsahu. J. The work of Installation of Drinking Water Supply Facility in the Kalamba Patna School at cost of Rs 2,00,000/( Two Lakh Rupees only) was given to Sri Ramakantasahu, S/o Sri Suj.ansahu and Sri Kabirajsahu, S/o Late Sri Surendrasahu. Page 3 of 5 time line and were 10.That, the above works were completed within the stipulated inaugurated by People's Representatives in the presence of Government officials at different points of time. However, before the bills were cleared and payments were made to the work-undertakers/ contractors, the term as a Sarpanch of the undersigned came to an end in the early 2022. 11.That, in the absence of the elected body, the PEO became all in all in the Panchayat affairs and for reasons best known to him he made payment for 3 works (Serial No. D, F and J) out of the above mentioned 10 works but yet to make payment against rest 7 works. 12. That, the persons who were given contracts executed the works by arranging money from different sources on the basis of the loan and it has been more than 3 years since the completion of assigned works. Being harassed due to delay in payment, they are now hackling me as contracts were issued under my seal and signature. Though I made several requests to the PEO to make payment, he did not pay any heed to my pleadings. So,I earnestly request your good self to make proper investigation into the matter objectively without any prejudice or favour and by issuing necessary directions to the concerned PEO ensure that payment is made against the works as soon as possible so that I shall be spared of the hackling for no fault of mine.” 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that if a decision is taken on the subject representation by the Block Development Officer, his client would be satisfied. With this proposal, learned ASC-Mr. Khandayatray is agreeable, provided that all contentions are kept open and a reasonable period is prescribed by this Court for consideration. This is fair enough. In the above circumstances, writ petition is disposed off. Time for consideration of the subject representation and informing result of Page 4 of 5 such consideration to the Petitioner in writing, is eight weeks. All contentions are kept open. It is open to the answering OP No.3 to solicit any information or documents from the side of the Petitioner, as required for taking a decision on the subject representation. However, in that guise delay shall not be brooked. Now, no costs. Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned. ( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge Madhusmita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA MALLICK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 10:29:29 Page 5 of 5