Dismissed¶38

Dillip Bal v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC19 Nov 2025WP(C)/3649/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Grama Panchayat headquarters fixation — Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, Section 4(3) — Site Selection Committee — distance criterion (Clause-7, 2 to 5 Kms) and population priority (Clause-10, 2000 above) — perversity as the threshold for judicial review of administrative action under Article 226 — objection that selected plot is a water channel (Pani Nala); plot Nos. 904 & 909, khata No. 982 — Harihar Swain 96(2003) CLT 454; Sri Keshab Sahukar (2016) 121 CLT 152; Smt. Babita Nagi 100(2005) CLT 397 — writ petition dismissed, interim order in I.A. No. 1879 of 2025 vacated.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; writ petition dismissed and, as a necessary corollary, the interim order dated 13th January, 2025 in I.A. No. 1879 of 2025 vacated. ¶38

Dillip Bal Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; writ petition dismissed and, as a necessary corollary, the interim order dated 13th January, 2025 in I.A. No. 1879 of 2025 vacated.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the decision of opposite party No.2 dated 27th January, 2025 (Annexure-1) fixing the location of the G.P. headquarters, ignoring the recommendations of the Block level Committee (Annexure-4) and District Level Committee (Annexure-5) and the criteria in the Government notification (Annexure-3), is liable to be modified or interfered with. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

A solitary instance of a village with lesser population (Bamanbindha G.P., where village-Barabatia with population 1,155 was identified as proposed G.P. HQs in place of village-Harsinghpur with population 2,701) cannot be the basis to allege that the decision of the Site Selection Committee is perverse.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Unless and until an administrative decision is perverse for not taking into account the relevant considerations, this Court is not to exercise the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

Key takeaways

There is no perversity in the decision refixing the G.P. HQs at the village earmarked, which is centrally located, ideally placed, administratively convenient and barely 1 to 2 kms from village-Golapokhari; hence the decision calls for no interference.ratio¶36
The Site Selection Committee inspected the site, examined the plots and found the plot constituting the main water channel to be unconnected to the selected site, which weighs against the plea that the selection is vitiated.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (R.K. Pattanaik, J.) dismissed W.P. (C) No.3649 of 2025 challenging the order dated 27th January, 2025 (Annexure-1) of opposite party No.2 fixing the Grama Panchayat headquarters at a village other than Golapokhari, despite Block level (Annexure-4) and District level (Annexure-5) Committee recommendations and R.I. reports, and alleging that a selected plot was a water channel. Held: a solitary contrary instance on the population criterion cannot establish perversity of the Site Selection Committee's decision; the Committee inspected the site and found the channel-plot unconnected to the selected site; and, relying on Harihar Swain, 96(2003) CLT 454 and Sri Keshab Sahukar, (2016) 121 CLT 152, absent perversity in an administrative decision the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not to be exercised. Interim order dated 13th January, 2025 in I.A. No. 1879 of 2025 vacated.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P. (C) No.3649 of 2025

¶3

Dillip Bal

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. G. Satpathy, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

19.11.2025

Order No.

Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.

¶17

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned decision by order dated 27^th January, 2025 as at Annexure-1 of opposite party No.2 seeking modification of the same as per the recommendations of the Block level Committee i.e. Annexure-4 and also District Level Committee as per Annexure-5 corresponding to the plots in question on the grounds stated therein.

¶18

Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recommendations as per Annexures-4 & 5 have been ignored for the purpose of location of the G.P. HQs and refers to the reports of the R.I. concerned. The submission is that the village earmarked and identified for the location of the G.P.

¶19

Page 1 of 7

¶20

HQs does not fulfill the criteria fixed by the Government as per the notification i.e. Annexure-3 issued by the Panchayati Raj Department. The contention is that village-Golapokhari is centrally placed and an ideal location to have the G.P. HQs and fulfills most of the criteria as per Annexure-3 but it has been given a go by despite the recommendations as per Annexures-4 & 5 and reports received from the R.I. concerned. The further contention is that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court in W.P. (C) No. 23708 of 2024 and it was disposed of by order dated 25^th September, 2024 vide Annexure-11 to consider the representation and the grievance therein vis-à-vis location of the HQs of the G.P. Since the plea of the petitioner is based on the notification dated 1st July, 2025 i.e. Annexure-3 and in one of the cases, even a village having less population has been identified for the G.P. HQs to be fixed at, Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel questions the decision of opposite party No.2 as per Annexure-1.

¶21

Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, submits that there is due compliance of the provisions of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and in particular, Section 4(3) thereof ,which stipulates that the office and HQs of the Grama Sasana shall be situated within the limits of the Grama and unless, otherwise, ordered by the State Government and for the village herein, the decision has been taken and the same is also in compliance of the notification i.e. Annexure-3 as at Annexure-B/4 (same as

¶22

Page 2 of 7

¶23

Annexure-3). It is further submitted that a Site Selection Committee considered the grievance of all concerned including the petitioner and hence, the location identified for the fixation of the HQs at Fatepur cannot be faulted with. The submission is that any such decision should be based on the population on a priority basis as per Clause-10 of Annexure-B/4 and for that, a reference is made to Annexure-C/4 to the counter affidavit to further submit that clarification was sought for and it was responded to as per Annexure-D/4 series. With the above submission, it is pleaded that there is no wrong or any illegality committed by opposite party No.2 with regard to the fixation of the HQs, hence, the impugned order dated 27^th January, 2025 at Annexure-1 is not to be disturbed.

¶24

In course of hearing, Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the plots chosen is a water channel, which is also supported by the reports of the R.I. and refers to Annexure-9 series. In reply and response to the above, Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC would submit that site inspection has been held by the Committee in place and it reveals the plot in question is not the main channel. A reference is made to the counter affidavit to advance the above argument since the site Selection Committee as per Annexure-D/4 series held and concluded that plot Nos. 904 & 909 corresponding to khata No. 982 selected for the site are not main water channel (Pani Nala), however, plot No. 903 is the said Nala which is not a part of the land schedule selected for the site.

¶25

Page 3 of 7

¶26

In course of hearing, Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State cited the following case laws in Harihar Swain & others Vrs. State of Odisha & others 96(2003) CLT-454 and Sri Keshab Sahukar Vrs. State of Orissa (2016)121 CLT 152 to contend that the decision of opposite party No.2 should not be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the administrative decision is found to be perverse.

¶27

Perused the notification at Annexure-3 (Annexure-B/4 to the counter) and therein, as per Clause-7, the distance factor should be 2 to 5 Kms. from the farthest village to the proposed G.P. HQs and that apart, it should also be centrally located and easily accessible besides administratively convenient to the people of the locality. The population is also one of the criteria and as per Clause-10 therein, a population of 2000 above shall be first priority for the purpose of fixation of the HQs of the G.P. Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State would submit that village-Golapokhari is about 1 Km. away from the village earmarked and therefore, no one is likely to be seriously affected and that apart, the latter village is having more population. Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though the population of the village in question is less but in one of such cases, a decision has been taken by the Government and refers to Annexure-9 with respect to Bamanbindha G.P. wherein village-Barabatia shown to have a population of 1,155 but identified as the proposed G.P. HQs

¶28

Page 4 of 7

¶29

in place of village-Harsinghpur, a population having 2,701. According to the Court a solitary instance as above cannot be the basis to allege that the decision of the Site Selection Committee is perverse. That apart, the Committee has inspected the site, examined the plots and found one of the plots to be the main channel unconnected to the site and considering the grievance of the petitioner and all others, took the decision and even sought for the Government’s clarification towards the end.

¶30

It is apposite to make a mention of the relevant extracts of the decision in Harihar Swain (supra) and the same is herein below:

¶31

“5. We are unable to accept the said submission of Mr. Mishra. On a reading of Subsection (3) of Section 4 of the Act we find that power has been vested in the State Government to decide the location of the Office and the HQs of a Grama Sasan and such power can be exercised by the State Government from time to time depending upon the requirements of public interest and there is no statutory bar for the Government to reconsider and take a fresh decision in the public interest. It appears from the record produced before us that after the Commissioner-cum-Secretary Government of Orissa, Panchayat Raj Department passed the order on 5.1.2002 rejecting the representation to shift the HQs from Nimani to Kalika Prasad, the Government had to reconsider the matter as the villagers of Kalika Prasad, Badabhuin and Arakhapalli had submitted representation to fix the HQs at Kalika Prasad or to retain the villages

¶32

Page 5 of 7

¶33

in the old Badasahara Grama Panchayat. It is on account of this representation and the grievance made-out by the villagers of the said three villages that the matter was reopened again and after thorough examination and after consideration of the report of the Collector, the HQs of the Grama Panchayat has been fixed at Kalika Prasad instead of Nimani by the impugned notification.”

¶34

Referring to the above decision, this Court in Sri Keshab Sahukar (supra) held and concluded that the Government has power to reconsider and to take a fresh decision in the public interest. A reference has been made in one of the earlier decisions of this Court in Smt. Babita Nagi Vrs. State of Odisha 100(2005) CLT 397. The above decisions, on a proper reading and appreciation, leads to a conclusion that unless and until an administrative decision is perverse for not taking into account the relevant considerations, this Court is not to exercise the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the case at hand, having regard to the recommendations and reports of the concerned R.I. and the grievance of the petitioner and others having been taken judicial notice by the Site Selection Committee and even clarification of the Government was obtained and ultimately, it has led to the decision as per Annexure-1. Having regard to the fact that the village identified earmarked for the refixation of the HQs is centrally located ideally placed, administratively convenient to manage the affairs of the G.P. which is barely at

¶35

Page 6 of 7

¶36

a distance of 1 to 2 kms. of village-Golapokhari, it cannot be said that there is any perversity in the decision, which, hence, calls for no interference.

¶37

10. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶38

In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. As a necessary corollary, the interim order dated 13^th January, 2025 in I.A. No. 1879 of 2025 is hereby vacated as a result.

¶39

A copy of the order be handed over to Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State for its onward intimation to the authority concerned.

¶40

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶41

Kabita

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 21-Nov-2025 12:55:28

¶44

Page 7 of 7

Dillip Bal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dillip Bal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saraswati Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Dillip Narayan Lal Vs D.Prabhakar

M/S. Trident Properties Pvt. Ltd., Bbsr Vs Subash Chandra Dehury

Sivanand Choudhury Vs State of Odisha

Dillip Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Shibasis Tripathy Vs State of Odisha