Disposed

Swarnalata Dash v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Sept 2024WP(C)/13901/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of a Ration Card application. Finding the State failed to substantiate the rejection, the Court disposed of the matter but granted liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh within four weeks for issuance of a Ration Card under the P.D.S. Control Order, 2016.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to apply afresh for a Ration Card within four weeks as per the P.D.S. Control Order, 2016.

Swarnalata Dash Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.13901 of 2016

¶3

Swarnalata Dash

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. D. Mohapatra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. B. Panigrahi, ASC

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

ORDER

10.09.2024

Order No.

15.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

2. This Writ Petition has been preferred to quash Annexure 2, vide which the prayer of the Petitioner to issue ration card in her favour under the National Food Security Act,2013 stood rejected by showing the reason to be “Ineligible, Concrete House with 3 Rooms”. However, during hearing on 09.01.2024, this Court passed the an order, Paragraphs-2 to 8 of which, being relevant, are reproduced below:

¶17

“2. Heard Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner so also Mr. S.S. Kanungo, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/Opposite Parties.

¶18

3. Mr. Mohapatra drawing attention of this Court to the averments made in para-6 of the Writ Petition submits, his client was a BPL Card holder but before cancellation of the same no communication was made to her or the so called report as indicated in the Counter was supplied to her to have her say in the said regard.

¶19

4. Mr. Mohapatra further submits, the so called report of the Panchayat Extension Officer of Sahada Grama Panchayat as at Annexure-D,

¶20

though discloses cause for deletion of the persons named in the list, so far as the present Petitioner is concerned, there is no mention as to how many rooms the Petitioner is having and how many family members in her family to exclude her name from the list to be the beneficiary for holding the ration card under the act.

¶21

5. Mr. Mohapatra further drawing attention of this Court to the averments made in para-10 of the Counter Affidavit further submits, the said averment made by the deponent of the said Counter Affidavit is baseless. The same has been based on the report which has been appended to the Counter as Annexure-D/2 and such report does not disclose that the petitioner is having a building having three or more than three rooms or she is having more members. Hence the said averments should not be relied upon to justify the action taken by the authority concerned to cancel the ration card of the Petitioner.

¶22

6. In response to the said submission made by Mr. Mohapatra, Mr. Kanungo, learned Additional Government Advocate prays for a short adjournment to take instruction and file specific affidavit to the said effect indicating therein as to the basis to state so in para-10 of the Counter Affidavit.

¶23

7. Prayer for adjournment is allowed.

¶24

8. Affidavit to the said effect be filed by 31^st January, 2024 after serving copy of the same on the learned Counsel for the petitioner.”

¶25

3. Pursuant to the said order, till date no Affidavit has been filed by the State-Opposite Parties, despite granting several adjournments to substantiate the stand taken in the rejection order as at Annexure 2, which was uploaded in the website of the Food Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department, Government of Odisha, which is under challenge.

¶26

4. During hearing, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, as the matter is pending since 2016, the

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

Petitioner be granted liberty to approach the concerned authority by giving a fresh application with detailed information for issuance of Ration Card in terms of Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, shortly hereinafter, Control Order,2016, which is to be considered by the authority concerned in accordance with law.

¶29

5. In view of such submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Writ Petition stands disposed of giving liberty to the Petitioner to apply afresh for Ration Card to the authority concerned, as prescribed under the Control Order,2016, within a period of four weeks hence.

¶30

6. It is made clear that if such an application is preferred, the authority concerned shall do well and act in terms of various provision of the P.D.S. Control Order, 2016 and issue Ration Card, if the Petitioner is found eligible to get a Ration Card as per the policy and guidelines of the State Government.

¶31

7. With the said observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶32

8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

(S. K. MISHRA)

JUDGE

Mona

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: MONALISA SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High COurt of Odisha Date: 11-Sep-2024 17:34:32

¶38

Page 3 of 3

Swarnalata Dash v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swarnalata Dash 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Orissa Vs Damodar Patra

Titly Haldar Vs State of Odisha

Rama Bewa Vs Zone Officer,L.a

Kanchan Bijay Tank Vs State

Ansupriya Satapathy Vs State of Odisha

Rabindra Kumar Swain Vs State of Odisha