Dismissed

Ram Chandra Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC6 Oct 2023WP(C)/13647/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, villagers alleged a water supply project was infringing on school premises. The High Court dismissed the matter as a frivolous PIL, noting no evidence proved the project was within the school limits, and it constituted an attempt to halt state development work.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000 to be deposited in the Advocate Welfare's Fund.

Ram Chandra Behera Vs State of Odisha — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No. 13647 of 2023

¶2

Rama Chandra Behera and others ….. Petitioners Mr. S. Mukherjee, Adv. Vs. State of Odisha and others ….. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Rath, ASC

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

¶5

ORDER 06.10.2023 Order No. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode. 02. 2. Heard Mr. S. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. 3. The petitioners have filed this writ petition by way of public interest litigation making innocuous prayer by alleging that the project work is going on within the school premises causing difficulties to the students of the school and to consider their representation for stopping the project work and to handover the vacant land to the management of the school.

¶6

Mr. S. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that water supply project is being undertaken within the premises of the school causing inconvenience to the students, for which the petitioners have filed representation before the authority, but the same has not been considered as yet. Therefore, direction may be given to the authority to consider the same in accordance with law by stopping the project work.

¶7

Mr. S. Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties contended that the area where the school has been established and where the project work is going on, no material has been produced before this Court for

¶8

Page 1 of 3

¶9

consideration and, as such, no case is made out that the project work is going on within the premises of the school. Mere filing of the representation before the authority will not suffice the problem. As such, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same should be dismissed with cost.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the petitioners who are claiming to be the villagers of village-Choupada, POPatasundarpur, PS-Govindpur in the district of Cuttack have filed this writ petition stating that they are the guardians of the students of the school and they came to know that one contractor is doing project work under Jal Jeevan Mission within the supervision of Rural Water & Sanitation Division, Odisha inside the premises of the school. Though they raised objection before opposite party no.7, but no action has been taken. Therefore, they seek direction to the opposite parties to consider their representation. But fact remains, nothing has been placed on record to indicate that the project work is going on within the premises of the school. Though ROR has been produced by the petitioners, but nothing has been found from the said ROR to support the contention raised by the petitioners that the project work is being undertaken within the school premises. Apart from the same, mere coming to the knowledge of the petitioners, who claim to be the villagers, that the project work is going on to the inconvenience of the students, this writ petition is not entertainable. As such, the petitioners are trying to stop the developmental work of the State. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain such type of frivolous public interest litigation, by which developmental work of the State is intended to be stopped.

¶11

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with a cost

¶12

Page 2 of 3

¶13

of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), which shall be deposited in the Advocate Welfare’s Fund of the High Court Bar Association within seven days, failing which the amount shall be recovered by initiating OPDR proceeding against the petitioners.

¶14

Ashok

¶15

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶16

(M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 06-Oct-2023 18:24:42

¶19

Page 3 of 3

Ram Chandra Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chandra Behera v. State of Odisha

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

Tikeswar Sahu Vs Tahasildar,Deogarh

State of Odisha Vs Sukanta Kumar Sethy

Bharatiya Bikash Parishad Vs Asit Kumar Tripathy

M/S.Hotel Tejasvi International Vs Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Abhimanyu Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Eastern Construction, Keonjhar Vs Union of India