Saroj Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 15535 Ori

Orissa High Court

Saroj Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 4 December, 2023

Author: R.K. Pattanaik

Bench: R.K. Pattanaik

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                    W.P.(C) No.39190 of 2023


            Saroj Kumar Sahoo                         ....               Petitioner
                                              Mr. Manoj Mishra, Senior Advocate

                                            -Versus-

            State of Odisha & others                     ....         Opposite Parties
                                                                Mr. P.K. Rout, AGA

                       CORAM:
                       MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK


                                            ORDER

Order No.                                  04.12.2023


01.         1.       Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for

the petitioner and Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State opposite party No.1.

2. No notices are issued to other opposite parties as the matter is disposed of at the stated of admission.

3. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the opposite parties not to demolish his OMFED Booth without making alternate provision and relocation of the existing booth on the grounds stated therein.

4. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running an OMFED Booth and recently, there has been a declaration to evict him with demolition of said booth without complying the direction of this Court in Laxmipriya Sahoo Vrs. Director of Estate & others and batch of cases. It is further submitted that the petitioner's case falls in one of the categories, such as, Category 'B' and in the aforesaid judgment, the authorities concerned have been directed to go for

site selection and relocation of the vendors but till date nothing has happened and instead intervened by the recent declaration as to eviction/demolition on 27th November, 2023 vis-à-vis the petitioner, which is illegal and hence, liable to be interfered with.

5. Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State submits that it is to be examined as to if the case of the petitioner falls under Category 'B' in order to avail the benefits of the Court's judgment vide Annexure-6 series.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is having a Trade License, a copy of which is at Annexure-4. It is claimed that the petitioner is still in occupation of the booth and running business from it. Gone through the judgment in Laxmipriya Sahoo (supra), a copy of which is made available, wherein, this Court had the occasion to examine the cases of vendors and issued series of directions in respect of different categories of cases and to work out the ways and measures with the assistance of the concerned Departments.

7. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that despite such a decision and directions issued vide Annexure-6 series in Laxmipriya Sahoo (supra), the case of the petitioner has not been considered, instead he has been threatened to vacate or else to face eviction and demolition of the OMFED Booth.

8. Considering the decision as above and directions issued by this Court vide Annexure-6 series, it is of the view that the case of the petitioner since claimed to be under Category 'B', before taking any such action of eviction and demolition of the OMFED Booth, his grievance should be examined and till such time, not to take any coercive action against him. In other words, the Court is in favour of a direction to the opposite parties and in particular, opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 to consider and extend the benefits to the

petitioner in view of the decision in Laxmipriya Sahoo (supra) to which he claims to be otherwise eligible, within a stipulated period of time in coordination with opposite party No.1 as the same would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice.

9. Accordingly, it is directed.

10. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties and particularly, opposite party Nos.2 to 4 to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the directions issued in Laxmipriya Sahoo (supra) and thereafter, on a subjective satisfaction, to go for site selection and relocation and to undertake such exercise in coordination with opposite party No.1 completing it preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, to maintain status quo in respect of the OMFED Booth in question.

11. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.

(R.K.Pattanaik) Judge Balaram

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 05-Dec-2023 11:02:07