Sunita Behera Vs Collector, Ganjam

Heard Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, Mr. J. Sahoo, learned counsel for opposite party No.4 besides Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State.

¶14

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned letters at Annexures-10 & 11 and further to issue a letter of allotment in her favour in respect of shop room No.2 situate inside the premises of the market complex of NAC at Gopalpur on the grounds stated.

¶15

Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 4^th September, 2024 with a notice as per Annexure-1, the petitioner submitted her application i.e. Annexure-2 seeking allotment of a shop room in

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

the market complex and thereafter, a lottery was drawn for the said purpose. It is further submitted that the petitioner learnt about the allotment in respect of shop room No.2 after obtaining information under the RTI Act, a copy of which is at Annexure-5 but for the reasons best known to opposite party No.2, no letter of allotment was issued and pursuant to order of this Court at Annexure-7, she submitted an application as per Annexure-8, however, it was disposed of vide Annexure-9 denying such allotment on the premise that one of her family members has been allotted a shop room in an another market complex. The submission is that the petitioner complying the conditions of the advertisement as she never possessed any other shop room under the NAC, Gopalpur applied pursuant to Annexure-1, however, the allotment was denied and it was on account of a Corrigendum dated 9^th October, 2024 as at Annexure-10 modifying the above condition to the effect that it shall be an allotment not only in respect of the applicants but also to include their family members. The contention Mr. Nanda, learned counsel is that after the selection is over, opposite party No.2 could not have changed the conditions with such a Corrigendum i.e. Annexure-10 and therefore, illegality has been committed, hence, the impugned letters as at Annexures-10 & 11 are liable to be quashed.

¶18

Recorded the submission of Mr. J. Sahoo, learned counsel for opposite party No.4.

¶19

Page 2 of 5

¶20

Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for opposite party No.2NAC, Gopalpur, filed the counter affidavit and submits that in order to avoid law and order situation, the Corrigendum i.e. Annexure-10 was issued. It is submitted by Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel referring to Annexure-A/2 to the counter affidavit that the husband of the petitioner has been allotted a shop room at Biju Pattnaik Market Complex of Gopalpur. The further submission is that as one of the family members of the petitioner is in possession of a shop room of the NAC, Gopalpur, in view of the Corrigendum at Annexure-10, the petitioner has not been considered for such allotment, hence, it was rightly declined vide Annexure-10.

¶21

In the counter affidavit, it is also pleaded that notice was issued to the petitioner as per Annexures-B/2 series, but she did not respond, a claim, which is not able to be established and therefore, the allotment was allowed in favour of opposite party No.4 after 10^th February, 2025, was vacated temporarily but restored thereafter on expiry of the interim order dated 9^th January, 2025. In any case, the condition of the advertisement as per Annexure-1 is that the applicant should not have been in possession of a shop room of the NAC. It is not in denial that as one of the aspirants the petitioner submitted the application and she was having no any other shop room in possession allotted by the NAC, Gopalpur by then. While claiming that the petitioner’s husband is allotted a shop room at NAC, after the selection is over, the Corrigendum as

¶22

Page 3 of 5

¶23

per Annexure-10 was issued on 9^th October, 2024. The contention of Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the game is over, the rule of game cannot be changed. The submission is that opposite party No.2 could not have changed the condition of the advertisement after the selection was concluded, which is revealed from Annexure-5. It is not denied by opposite party No.2 that the petitioner was not selected for the allotment, rather, Annexure-5 revealed that shop room No.2 was allotted in her favour.

¶24

Having considered the above facts, submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and the plea of opposite party No.2 in particular with reference to counter affidavit filed today, this Court is of the view that the Corrigendum at Annexure-10 is not legally tenable as opposite party No.2 could not have modified the conditions for whatever reasons. This Court is also of the view that the allotment of the shop room in favour of the petitioner should be directed she having been selected as one of the applicants so revealed from Annexure-5.

¶25

8. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶26

In the result, writ petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid. It is further directed that opposite party No.2 shall ensure allotment of the shop room by taking up necessary exercise in respect thereof vis-à-vis the petitioner and to allot a shop room in the market complex of NAC, Gopalpur at the earliest preferably within a period of four weeks from

¶27

Page 4 of 5

¶28

Alok

¶29

the date of receipt of a copy of the order. As a necessary corollary, the impugned letter at Annexure-11 is hereby set aside and also Annexure-10 with the direction for opposite party No.2 to comply the above order within the above stipulated period.

¶30

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶31

(R.K. Pattanaik)

¶32

Judge

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 17-Sep-2025 19:08:57

¶35

Page 5 of 5

Sunita Behera v. Collector, Ganjam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Behera v. Collector, Ganjam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rudra Prasad Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Satyendra Kumar Vs Union of India

Anita Nayak Vs Krishna Kumari Jena

Mihira Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Tirtha Sahu Vs Mst.Sarojini Bhoi

Asif Iqbal@Iquibal Khan Vs Hamida Begum