Laxmikanta Barado vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4441 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                W.P.(C). No.12814 of 2023


                 Laxmikanta Barado                       ....           Petitioner

                                                          Mr. G. Sethi, Advocate
                                              -versus-
                 State of Odisha and others              ....    Opposite Parties

                                                          Mr. I. Mohanty, A.S.C.
                                        CORAM:

                            JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

                                            ORDER

Order No.                                  26.04.2023
    01.     1.      This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
            /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto.

3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties more particularly to the Opp.party No.4 i.e. the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Gajapati, Parlakhemundi to show cause as to why the decision/rejection order vide No.2569 dt.24.12.2021 (under Annexure-7) shall not be quashed considering the Hon'ble Apex Court's Judgment in case of Malaya Nanda Sethy-vrs-State of Odisha reported in 2022(II) OLR (SC-1) (under Annexure-9) and the petitioner's representation dt.10.12.2022 (under Annexure-10);

// 2 //

And as to why the petitioner shall not be given appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme Rule, 1990 within a stipulated period for the interest of justice;

And if the Opp.parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the said rule be made absolute;

And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as would be deemed fit and proper which would give complete relief to the petitioner;":-

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that although the petitioner has filed representation dated 10.12.2019 under Annexure-10 before the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation (M.I.) Division, Gajapati-Opposite Party No.4, the same is still pending before the said Opposite party and the said Opposite Party has not taken any decision as of now.

5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that he has no objection, if a direction is given to the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation (M.I.) Division, Gajapati-Opposite Party No.4 to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

6. Considering the submissions made, the limited nature of grievance involved in the present writ petition, keeping in view the case of the petitioner, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission with a direction to the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation (M.I.) Division, Gajapati- Opposite Party No.4-Opposite Party No.4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.12.2019 under Annexure-10 in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is needless to mention here that the representation of the petitioner shall be considered and disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Decision so // 3 //

taken on the said representation shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter.

7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Jagabandhu