Ranjit Bhuyan vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 14424 Ori

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Nov-2023 10:34:07




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                    W.P.(C) No.23375 of 2014

                           (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
                           Constitution of India)

                            Ranjit Bhuyan                                 ....                    Petitioner
                                                                       -versus-
                            State of Odisha and others                    ....              Opposite Parties

                           Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

                                          For Petitioner           : Mr. C.R. Swain, Advocate

                                          For Opposite Parties     : Mr. S.P. Panda, A.G.A.


                                            CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
                                                             JUDGMENT

th 13 November, 2023

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. C.R. Swain, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties.

2. The case of the Petitioner is that, he had earlier one shop in the market area at Salipur Block Headquarter and for construction of the market complex building, his shop was demolished. The market complex was constructed in Salipur Block Headquarter in Chandradeipur Gram Panchayat consisting forty-five shop-rooms. The guidelines/modalities for selection of beneficiaries for allotment of

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Nov-2023 10:34:07

such shop-rooms in the market complex were issued by the Collector, Cuttack in Memo No.979 dated 20.07.2009. According to said guidelines, first preference will be given to SHGs assisted under SGSY or Mission Shakti or any other Govt. Scheme. Second preference will be given to BPL individuals/Swarojgaries assisted under SGSY. Third preference will be given to rural artisans. Further 50% beneficiaries/SHGs will be from the Headquarter G.P. and in case sufficient applicants will not be there, there may be reduction of the percentage.

3. The Petitioner claims that he is a rural artisan belonging to Headquarter G.P. and therefore, third preference should be extended in his favour to select him as one of the beneficiaries.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State authorities stating that, on field enquiry conducted by the technical person (IPO), it came to the notice that the Petitioner does not come under rural artisan category and he did not file any supporting document to that effect. As such, the case of the Petitioner was not considered and he was not selected.

5. The Petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has replied denying the averments made in the counter and further bringing several irregularities in allotment of the shop-rooms in favour of different influential persons. He further disputed the local enquiry to reject his contention as a rural artisan. According to the Petitioner, he is a Carpenter by profession and the certificate of carpentry granted by one NGO has been filed under Anneuxre-3.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Nov-2023 10:34:07

In course of hearing, the copy of information obtained under the RIT Act dated 17.11.2022 was produced disclosing that Shop No.11 is still lying vacant. Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that till date said Shop No.11 has been kept vacant pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court dated 09.12.2014. The said information produced by Mr. Swain is kept on record.

6. As seen from the record, though it is contended in the counter affidavit that the Petitioner was not found to be a rural artisan, but no such enquiry report of the IPO has been produced. On the other hand, the certificate of carpentry granted in favour of the Petitioner under Annexure-3 speaks in his favour about his training and qualification as a Carpenter. Said Annexure-3 falsifies the averment made in the counter affidavit that no document was produced in support of the eligibility of the Petitioner as a rural artisan. So as seen, the Petitioner has successfully established his case for the preferential category as a rural artisan. Undoubtedly, his residence in the Headquarter G.P. remains unquestioned.

7. In the circumstances, keeping in view the facts discussed above and the availability of Shop No.11 as on date, it is directed to allot the said Shop No.11 in favour of the Petitioner within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as allowed.

(B.P. Routray) Judge B.K. Barik/Secretary