Indumati Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶21

The Petitioners have filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶22

“Under these circumstances, the Petitioner humbly prays that Your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit the Writ Petition, and call for the records and after hearing all the parties, issue the writ of „Mandamus‟ or any other writs; directing the Opp. Party No.2 i.e. Collector &

¶23

Page 1 of 4.

¶24

District Magistrate, Nayagarh to redress the grievance under Annexure-5 Series thereby directing the Opp. Party No.4 (BDO, Bhapur) to issue work order immediately in favour of the Petitioner for construction of a „pucca‟ house under the Antyodaya Gruha Jojana.

¶25

And further be pleased to pass any other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as would be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶26

Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that the Petitioners, being found eligible to get the benefit under the Antyodaya Gruha Jojana, applied to the competent authority for issuance of the work order in their favour to construct their house under the abovenamed scheme. He further contended that although the Petitioners were found eligible among 84 persons who were selected to get the benefit under the aforesaid scheme, however, the work order was not issued by the B.D.O, Bhapur-Opposite Party No.4 to the writ application. He further contended that certain irregularities were found by the Panchayat Samiti of Bhapur, accordingly, the Chairman, Bhapur Panchayat Samiti wrote a letter dated 05.04.2025 at Annexure-6 to the Collector, Nayagarh. However, no final decision has been taken on such complaint of the Chairman, Bhapur Panchayat Samiti. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that although a decision has been taken since long to extend the benefit under the scheme in favour of the Petitioners and similarly situated persons, however, no work order has been issued by the Opposite Party No.4. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties, Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

¶27

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no instruction in the matter, however, on a

¶28

Page 2 of 4.

¶29

careful examination of the documents annexed to the writ application, it appears that certain objections were raised at the instance of the Bhapur Panchayat Samiti. Therefore, the work order has not been issued in favour of the present Petitioners. He further contended that in the event the Petitioners have already approached, as stated by learned counsel for the Petitioners, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to consider such grievance of the Petitioners in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶30

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the documents on record, further keeping in view the limited nature of grievance involved in the present writ application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the grievance of the Petitioners which has been communicated to him on 18.08.2025 at Annexure-5 by providing an opportunity of hearing to both sides including the Chairman, Bhapur Panchayat Samiti and dispose of the grievance of the Petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. The grievance of the Petitioners shall be disposed of strictly in consonance with the scheme and by passing a reasoned order. A copy of final order be communicated to the Petitioners within ten days thereafter. It is further made clear that if there is no objection against the present Petitioners and that the Petitioners have been found eligible for such scheme, necessary consequential steps be taken by the authorities if there are no other legal impediments on the way

¶31

Page 3 of 4.

¶32

within a period of six weeks from the date of taking such a decision.

¶33