Disposed¶16

Ashok Kumar Lenka v. State of Odisha

Writ Petition (Civil) – House site allotment

Orissa HC18 Aug 2025WP(C)/19290/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) 19290/2025, High Court of Orissa, Dixit Krishna Shripad J., 18.08.2025; petitioner Ashok Kumar Lenka v. State of Odisha; house site allotment application kept pending indefinitely; direction to OP No.2 to consider application per agreement dated 22.05.2002 (Annexure-2) within eight weeks; Article 21 speedy justice; notice to OP No.2 dispensed; punitive action and personal costs on default; writ petition disposed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to OP No.2 to consider and decide the Petitioner's application for allotment of house site (in terms of agreement dated 22.05.2002, Annexure-2) within eight weeks, with liberty to seek punitive action/personal costs against OP No.2 on default; no costs imposed now; Registry to send copy of the order to OP No.2 by speed post. ¶16

Ashok Kumar Lenka Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should intervene where the Petitioner's application for grant of a house site, with all compliances allegedly made, is kept pending indefinitely by the authorities.

¶12

Court's answer

Writ petition disposed of by directing OP No.2 to consider the Petitioner's application for allotment of house site, in terms of agreement dated 22.05.2002 (Annexure-2), within eight weeks; all contentions of the parties kept open.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Since no positive order on merits is passed (only an order to pass an order on the pending application), notice to OP No.2 is dispensed with; the decision-making authority is OP No.2.

¶13

Key takeaways

Indefinite pendency of the application is addressed on the premise that the right to speedy justice is one of the facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶15
Answering OPs may solicit information/documents from the Petitioner needed to decide the representation, but delay will not be brooked; if no decision issues within eight weeks, the Petitioner may move for punitive action against OP No.2, including imposition of heavy costs in thousands of rupees personally payable by him.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Civil) — House site allotment — Indefinite pendency of applicant's application despite claimed compliances — High Court of Orissa (Dixit Krishna Shripad, J.) declined to pass any positive order on merits, dispensed with notice to OP No.2, and directed OP No.2 (the decision-making authority) to consider the Petitioner's application in terms of the agreement dated 22.05.2002 (Annexure-2) within eight weeks — Right to speedy justice noted as a facet of Article 21 — Answering OPs free to call for information/documents but delay not to be brooked — On failure to decide within eight weeks, Petitioner may seek punitive action against OP No.2 including heavy costs personally payable by him — All contentions kept open — No costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO.19290 OF 2025

¶2

Ashok Kumar Lenka

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. T.K. Praharaj, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Others

¶7

…. Opp.Parties Mr. U.C. Behura, AGA

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD ORDER 18.08.2025

¶9

Order No.

¶10

¶11

The short grievance of the Petitioner is as to nonconsideration of his application for grant of a house site despite making all compliances. Petitioner draws attention of the Court to various documents that are produced as annexures in support of his claim and some of these documents vouch the payment as well, prima facie.

¶12

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently argues that where all compliances have been done there is absolutely no reason to keep the application pending indefinitely and therefore, this Court should intervene.

¶13

3. Learned AGA-Mr. Behura accepts notice for OP No.1 and submits that decision making authority is OP No.2. Notice to OP No.2 is dispensed with, since no positive order is being passed on merits at all. What is being passed is an order to pass an order on the subject application, which is kept pending indefinitely, right to

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

speedy justice being one of the facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

In the above circumstances, writ petition is disposed off directing OP No.2 to consider subject application of the Petitioner for allotment of the house site, in terms of agreement dated 22.05.2002 at Annexure-2 within a period of eight weeks. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶17

It is open to the answering OPs to solicit any information or documents from the side of the Petitioner, as required for taking a decision on the subject representation. However, in that guise delay shall not be brooked.

¶18

If decision is not taken within eight weeks, it is open to the Petitioner to move an appropriate application for taking punitive action against OP No.2, which may include imposition of heavy costs in thousand of rupees personally payable by him.

¶19

Now, no costs.

¶20

Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.

¶21

Registry to send a copy of this order to OP No.2 by speed post immediately for compliance.

¶22

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶23

Madhusmita Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA MALLICK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 18-Aug-2025 17:39:28