Dismissed

Nayana Chhualsingh v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC9 Oct 2023WP(C)/281/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL regarding the site selection for a Kalyan Mandap, the High Court of Orissa discharged the petitioner, noting that the proposed site belonged to a closed primary school. The Court refused to entertain objections hindering State development and permitted withdrawal with liberty to pursue other remedies.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of the writ petition permitted with a liberty to pursue remedy before the appropriate forum.

Nayana Chhualsingh Vs State of Orissa — Public Procurement and Tenders | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 281 of 2019

¶3

Smt. Nayana Chhualsingh …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Deepak Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate -versus-

¶5

State of Odisha and others

¶6

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Debakanta Mohanty Additional Government Advocate

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI

¶9

MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN

¶10

Order No.

¶11

¶12

ORDER 09.10.2023 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the State-Opposite Parties.

¶13

The Petitioner, claiming to be a public-spirited woman and a

¶14

former Sarpanch of Panchupalli Gram Panchayat under Jatni Panchayat Samiti, has filed this writ petition in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for a direction to the Opposite Parties to shift the site for construction of proposed Kalyan Mandap to Plot No.139, having area Ac. 2.00 from Plot No.162, which is a

¶15

primary school playground in village Panchupalli.

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended

¶18

that the Kalyan Mandap is going to be constructed on Plot No.162 of village Panchupalli in the district of Khurdha, which has been earmarked as primary school playground. Therefore, the proposed Kalyan Mandap has to be shifted to Plot No.139 having area Ac.2.00.

¶19

Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, learned AGA for the State has contended that in the name of this PIL, the Petitioner, claiming to be a public-spirited woman and being the former Sarpanch of Panchupalli Gram Panchayat, vindicates the grievance of the political parties and does not want to have the development work in the present premises. Therefore, the Petitioner prays for shifting of the Kalyan Mandap.

¶20

As it appears from the order dated 09.05.2023 passed in I.A.

¶21

No.232 of 2019, which has been disposed of by this Court, it has been specifically mentioned that the Block Development Officer (BDO) in its reply brought to the notice of the Court that construction of Kalyan Mandap is a Rs.35Lakh project under SFS Scheme for creation of capital assets of Panchupalli Gram Panchayat for revenue generation ant it was sanctioned technically

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

by the Additional Project Director, Khurdha on 10^th May, 2018. By filing the above application and the Petitioner having got an interim order on 21.01.2019, the construction work of the Kalyan Mandap could not be undertaken. Thereby, it caused immense difficulties for the local public and, as such, due to the inconvenience and a huge loss caused to the State revenue, this Court by entertaining the

¶24

I.A. No.232 of 2019, vacated the said interim order.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records, this Court finds that the Government had taken a decision to provide Kalyan Mandap in village Panchupalli and for that purpose the land in question was selected. Although the said land belonged to a primary school, it is stated that the said primary school has been closed in the meantime. Once the school has been closed, the land in question, which was available for the school playground, may not be utilized for that purpose any more. Consequentially, if the proposed Kalyan Mandap is constructed over the said land, it will serve the purpose of the local public and by filing this PIL, the Petitioner is obstructing the same.

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

It is well settled in law that no citizen has a right to obstruct any

¶28

development work of the State in the guise of filing PIL. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶29

At this stage, Mr. Deepak Kumar Mohapatra, learned counsel for

¶30

the Petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw this writ petition with a liberty to pursue his remedy before the appropriate

¶31

forum in accordance with law.

¶32

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of, as withdrawn, with the liberty as prayed for.

¶33

( DR. B.R. SARANGI ) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE

¶34

S. Behera/ M. Panda

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Jr.Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Oct-2023 18:52:10

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Nayana Chhualsingh v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nayana Chhualsingh v. State of Orissa

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

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

Ram Chandra Behera Vs State of Odisha

Abhimanyu Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

State of Odisha Vs Pratap Chandra Nayak

M/S. Ujjwal Govind Auto Vs Rati Kanta Mahapatra

M/S Sinki Construction Vs Project Manager,Orissa Power Transmission Corp. Ltd.