Orissa High Court
Sri Anil Kumar Baral vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 4 February, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.32857 of 2024
Sri Anil Kumar Baral ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Ashok Kumar
Mohapatra
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
04.02.2025 Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:
"In the circumstances the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble court will graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why work order for construction of Paver Block Road at Tala Odia Sahi, Hatabaradiha GP, Chilika under the MPLADS shall not be issued with immediate Page 1 of 3. effect;
AND If the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said Rule may be made absolute;
AND Issue any other appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper;"
4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that Hon'ble Member of Parliament vide his letter dated 16.03.2024, under Annexure-1, requested the BDO, Chilika to construct the Paver Block Road at Tala Odia Sahi under Chilika Block. He further contended that a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- was sanctioned and the BDO, Chilika was nominated as the executive agency for the aforesaid work. Vide letter dated 16.03.2024 of the District Planning & Monitoring Unit, Khordha under Annexure-2 to the writ petition, he further contended that despite the recommendation of the district planning & monitoring unit and the amount having been sanctioned, no work order has been issued, as a result of which the work has not been completed. Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that he has no instruction in the matter. He further contended that in the event, this Court directs the Opposite Parties to examine the issue and passing necessary orders in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time, will have no objection to the State.
Page 2 of 3.6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record, further keeping in view the limited nature of the grievance involved in the present writ application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a detailed representation along with supporting documents within a period of two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall consider the same and dispose of the representation in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of such representation. The representation of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Any final decision taken by the Opposite Party No.2 be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such decision.
7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Page 3 of 3.
Reason: AuthenticationLocation: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Feb-2025 18:39:14