Rupa Manjari Mahapatra vs Principal Secretary
2023 Latest Caselaw 4881 Ori

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4881 Ori
Judgement Date : 2 May, 2023

Orissa High Court

Rupa Manjari Mahapatra vs Principal Secretary on 2 May, 2023

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           W.P.(C). No.10304 of 2023

        In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of the
        Constitution of India.
                                   -----------
        Rupa Manjari Mahapatra            ...                Petitioner

                                                   Versus

        Principal Secretary, MSME,
        Bhubaneswar & Ors.                           ...                Opposite Parties

             For Petitioner                 ...      Mrs. Sujata Jena, Mr.S.Panda &
                                                   Mr.B.P.Chhualsingh.

             For Opposite Parties                  Mr.U.K.Sahoo, Addl. Standing
                                                   Counsel.



                                   JUDGMENT

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH

Date of Hearing & Judgment: 02.05.2023

Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition involves the following prayer:

<In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition, issue notice to the opp. parties specifically to O.P.No.3 to show cause as to why the order dt. 10.03.2023 under annexure-8 shall not be quashed and if the opp. parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the Hon'ble Court upon hearing the parties may further be pleased to allow this Writ Petition by quashing the said order under annexure-11 in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ directing the O.P.s to reconsider the proposal of the petitioner unit within a stipulated time in consonance with the letter under annexure-8 and may be further pleased to pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as may

// 2 //

be deemed expedient in the interest of justice and for this act of kindness as the petitioner is duty bound shall ever pray.=

2. Principal challenge involving the writ petition appears to

be alleged illegal consideration of the case of the petitioner

Agenda No.3 (II). Taking this Court to the request of the

authority for answering to the queries raised at Annexure-10,

Mrs.Jena, learned counsel taking again this Court to Annexure-3

contended that there has been submission of the response to the

queries sought for. It is again taking this Court to the

recommendation through Annexure-7, Mrs.Jena, learned counsel

also attempted to convince the Court that there has been

already a recommendation by the competent authority as

marked in right-hand column of Sl. No.1 at page-35 of the brief.

It is next taking this Court to the discussions on the

consideration of the case of the petitioner appearing at page-38

of the brief, petitioner has a serious allegation that when the

first part discussion indicates petitioner did not have the

response to the queries, in the subsequent paragraph there is

abrupt reaching with the conclusion merely stating that even

though there is response of the petitioner to the queries at the

Online Go-Swift portal but it is simply to mislead the authority.

// 3 //

It is in the above background, Mrs.Jena, learned counsel claims

there has been mechanical disposal of the issue involved therein.

3. Mr.Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel in his

opposition to the allegation of the petitioner again on reading of

the observation at page-38 of the brief, for the reason assigned

therein attempted to satisfy the rejection of the claim of the

petitioner.

4. This Court in consideration of the rival contentions of the

parties finds undisputedly petitioner has responded to the queries

vide Annexure-3. This apart, there also appears there is a

recommendation in favour of the petitioner vide page-35,1st

paragraph right hand column which runs as follows:

<It is understood that the applicant has proposed to set up a modern recycling plant which is one of the ten common infrastructure facilities needed in a part under the Plastic Park Scheme of Government of India. Further, the applicant proposes to develop a warehouse. Since the Park has its own warehouse as a common facility, it is considered that the applicant may be allowed to provide the services to other vendors as proposed, subject to clearance from PPPL after utilization of at least 75% occupancy of the Park's own warehouse facility.=

5. It is at this stage, taking into account the discussion of the

final observation in the impugned order at Annexure-8, this

Court finds there is not only no dealing with the response of the

petitioner to the queries but there is also no taking into account

the recommendation of the competent authority vide Annexure-

7, as taken note hereinabove.

// 4 //

6. Considering the impugned order involves a mechanical

rejection, this Court interfering in the decision against the

petitioner involving Agenda No.3 (II) impugned herein, sets

aside the same and remits the matter back again to the

Collector & DM-cum-Chairperson, DSWCA, Jagatsinghpur for