Allowed

Prasanta Naik v. State

Orissa HC3 Nov 2016WP(C)/25087/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order confirms the cancellation of an illegal auction bid for a bathing pond held by the Sarpanch in violation of panchayat rules. The court directs the Collector to arrange compensation of Rs.30,000 for loss incurred by the bidder and refund of the bid amount, payable from Panchayat funds if the Sarpanch fails to pay.

What did the court decide?

Confirmed cancellation of bid; directed Collector to ensure Sarpanch pays Rs.30,000 compensation and refunds Rs.4,000 bid deposit to petitioner within two months.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 12.11.2014 p assed by the Sarpanch, Raghunathpali G.P. vide Annexure-4. It is claimed that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person and he participated in the auction concerning Raghunathpali Gadhua Bandha (bathing pond) held by Raghunathpali Grama Panchayat, vide Annexure-1. The bid was knocked in favour of the petitioner on 28.05.2014, he being the highest bidder. Subseque ntly, after about six months, on 12.11.2014 the bid was cancelled vide Annexure-4 by the order of the Sarpanch, Raghunathpali G.P. (opp. party no.4) on the instruction of the B.D.O. concer ned.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has spent about Rs.50 ,000/- (fifty thousand) in the auction by taking loan within the six months period the bid was subsisting and the bid was cancelled without giving any opportunity of being heard to him. I n the alternative it is prayed that, as the bid was for three years from 2014 to 2017, the amo unt spent by the petitioner be refunded to him with interest thereon. The State Authorities have filed their counter. The Sarpanch (opp. party no.4) has not appeared in this case despite sufficiency of service of notice on him.

In the counter affidavit it is asserted by the State Authorities that, as per Form-1 8 submitted by the Panchayat, filed to the counter as Annexure-A/2, it is clearly mentioned in Column 11 of Serial No.16 that the pond being a Gadhua Bandha shall not be put to auction. F urther, under Rule 87 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules, the Sub-Collector is the competent authority to hold auction and not the Sarpanch. But, in the present case, illegally the Sarpa nch had held the auction and had knocked the bid in favour of the petitioner. When the afores aid fact came to the notice of the authorities concerned, instruction was issued to the concer ned Sarpanch to cancel the bid, as the pond in question cannot be put to auction, the same bei ng a Gadhua Bandha (bathing pond). Annexure A/2 shows that Gadhua Bandha of all the Panchayat s have been left out of the fold of auction. The Sarpanch (opp. party no.4) having committed illegality, the same could not have been perpetuated, as the act was illegal ab initio and it was to be cancelled being violative of Rule 87 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules and Form-18 of the said Rules.

After taking stock of Form-18 of the Rules and Rule 87, it is clear that the Sarpanc h (opp. party no.4) had put the Raghunathpali Gdhua Bancha to auction illegally and without an y authority in complete violation of Rule 87 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules, and such act ion of the Sarpanch has rightly been rectified by the authorities concerned. The Sarpanch (op p. party no.4) though should have appeared in this case, has not appeared despite of notice se rved on him. For the illegality committed on the part of the Sarpanch (opp. party no.4), the petitioner, who is a handicapped person, is stated to have sustained loss of Rs.50,000/- (rupe es fifty thousand).

Taking into consideration the facts and submission, the cancellation of the bid vide Annexure-4 is confirmed. The Collector, Jharsuguda (opposite party no.2) is directed to see that the Sarpanch of Raghunathpali G.P. (opp. party no.4) pays Rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thou sand) to the petitioner towards compensation of the illegality committed by him (Sarpanch) in the auction and refund Rs.4,000/- (four thousand) deposited by the petitioner towards the bid amount within two months from today. If the Sarpanch (opp. party no.4) does not pay the amoun t to the petitioner within the stipulated period of two months, the Collector (opp. party no.2 ) shall take all steps to pay the aforesaid amount from the Panchayat Offices Fund of Raghunat hpali G.P. to the petitioner and appropriate proceeding shall be initiated against the concern ed Sarpanch for recovery of the amount from him.

Prasanta Naik v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanta Naik v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gunanidhi Chhatria Vs Govt.of Orissa

Gunanidhi Seth Vs State and Ors.

Narayan Kampa Vs Collector,Bolangir

Kalu Ch.Paikray Vs State and Ors.

Sovakar Naik and Ors. Vs State Election Comm

Trilochan Das Vs State of Odisha