Orissa High Court
Arun Kumar Bhuyan vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 7 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO.29914 OF 2022
Arun Kumar Bhuyan .... Petitioner
Ms.D.Mahapatra, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & ors. .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr.S.P.Panda, AGA
Mr.D.Mohapatra, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
ORDER
7.12.2022
Order No.
05. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
2. The Writ Petition involves the following prayer :-
"Under the facts and circumstances as narrated
above, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue
rule Nisi to the opposite parties and if the opposite parties
will fail to show cause or shown insufficient cause, make the
said Rule absolute by directing the opposite parties to grant
approval of the plan in respect of the Plot in question in
favour of the petitioner and to make sale deed in favour of the
petitioner and quash the letter dated 23.12.2020 under
Annexure-7..."
3. Taking this Court to the impugned rejection order at
Annexure-7, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits, there has
been rejection of the plan approval applied at the instance of the
Petitioner by the Development Authority on the premises of plot
// 2 //
being allotted under discretionary quota and is under investigation.
While rejecting the claim of the Petitioner, it has also been indicated
therein that till finalisation of the proceeding, the proposal cannot be
considered.
4. For the opinion of this Court, this is not a complete rejection
of the plan approval of the Petitioner and the Petitioner has still the
scope of consideration.
5. Be that as it may, filing counter affidavit on behalf of the
Development Authority, Mr.D.Mohapatra, learned counsel
appearing for it, brings to the notice of this Court that there is
already a proceeding pending, vide Annexure-A/1 series involving
the notice to show cause for cancellation of the plot standing against
the Petitioner. Through the pleading in the counter through
Paragraph-7, it is claimed, for pendency of the proceeding, it is
necessary to first dispose of the proceeding and dependent on the
outcome in the said proceeding (Annexure-6), a decision is still
available to be taken on the request of the Petitioner, as informed,
vide Annexure-7.
6. There is no dispute at the Bar that there has been a decision
of this Court in the matter of single discretionary quota allotment,
which also applies to the case at hand but for the opinion of this
// 3 //
Court, for pendency of the proceeding against the Petitioner and the
impugned order was passed on 23.12.2020 giving a development
through the decision of this Court to the issue involved therein
recently, vide W.P.(C) No.5274/2022 disposed of on 19.7.2022, this
Court finds, the proceeding involving the Petitioner, vide Annexure-
A/1 series must be disposed of within a time frame at least within
period of one and half months. Decision process may also involve
consideration of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)
No.5274/2022.
7. In disposal of the Writ Petition, the Secretary, Cuttack
Development Authority is directed to revive the proceeding, vide
Annexure-A/1 series and complete the entire exercise keeping in
view the judgment of this Court dated 19.7.2022 passed in W.P.(C)
No.5274/2022 at least within a period of one and half months from
the date of communication of this order by the Petitioner. Dependent
on the outcome, there should be also decision on the request of the
Petitioner on the plan approval involving the Plot involved herein. It
is made clear, in the event the proceeding goes in favour of the
Petitioner, decision on the plan approval aspect involving the
Petitioner may also be concluded within a period of one month
thereafter.
// 4 //
8. With this observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biswanath Rath)
Judge
M.K.Rout
