Disposed

Rabinarayan Sahoo v. Secretary

Orissa HC21 Jun 2022WP(C)/1878/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition by an NGO seeking release of the balance grant-in-aid for a completed project, the Court directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to either disburse the funds or communicate reasons for rejection within six weeks before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare directed to disburse balance grant or communicate reasons for rejection within six weeks.

Rabinarayan Sahoo Vs Secretary — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.1878 Of 2016 (Through hybrid mode)

¶3

Rabinarayan Sahoo

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Sachidananda Sahoo, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. Secretary Ministry of Health & Opposite Parties Family Welfare, Govt. of India and another

¶8

Mr. P.K. Das, Advocate (Central Government Counsel)

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

Order No.

ORDER 21.06.2022

1. Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and had on 22^nd February, 2022 submitted that his client is a NonGovernment Organisation (NGO). It received grant-in-aid from Central Government.. He draws attention to letter dated 23^rd April, 2012, addressed to Collector and District Magistrate, Jajpur. He submits, 60% of the grant was disbursed but balance is yet to be disbursed. His client has completed the project and hence, there be direction for disbursement of the balance.

¶14

2. Mr. Das, learned advocate, Central Government Counsel

¶15

appears on behalf of Union of India and submits, his client has filed

¶16

Page 1 of 1

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

additional affidavit. Inter alia, there is disclosure of record of extract from the file to show that the scheme was discontinued from the financial year 2013-14 vide letter dated 6^th January, 2014. Mr. Sahoo in reply, draws attention to annexure-4 being letter dated 17^th January, 2013 written by Collector and District Magistrate, Jajpur. Text of the letter is reproduced below.

¶19

“ Enclosed, please find herewith the Track Records of the NGO, “Gangotree”, Plot No.1325/3037, KB Lane, Old Town, Bhubaneswar, in the State of Odisha for deciding future issues. The NGO has implemented the IEC Programmes successfully.

¶20

The Ministry may release balance amount of the Grant-in-Aid sanctioned in favour of the Executing NGO viz. Gangotree for settlement of liabilities.”

¶21

3. Relied upon extract from the file contains, inter alia, submission under paragraph-6, as submitted on 7^th December, 2017 under annexure-C, reproduced below.

¶22

“6. This Ministry with the approval of JS(RCH) has constituted a committee to evaluate the progress reports both physical and financial, submitted by NGOs and give recommendations w.r.t.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

release of funds to NGO and further course of action, accordingly.”

¶26

4. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Union of India is directed to deal with petitioner’s claim for disbursement of the balance on having completed the project, as appearing from said letter dated 17^th January, 2013 written by the Collector (annexure-4 at page 22). Either the disbursement is to be made or reasons for rejection of

¶27

the claim be made known to petitioner within six weeks of

¶28

Sks

¶29

communication.
5. The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Rabinarayan Sahoo v. Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabinarayan Sahoo v. Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lily Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Gayadhar Parikshya Vs State of Odisha

Bhusan Bandichhor Vs Swadha Dev Singh, Collector, Nuapada

Odisha Gramya Bank, Sukinda Branch Vs the Commnr. Cum Secy., S and Me Dept.

Odisha Gramya Bank, Sukinda Branch Vs Commnr. Cum Secretary, S and Me Dept.

Odisha Gramya Bank,Balidiha Branch Vs the Commnr.-Cum-Secy.,S and Me Dept.