Rajendra Biswal & Ors vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9350 Ori

Orissa High Court

Rajendra Biswal & Ors vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 24 October, 2025

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                W.P.(C). No. 25632 of 2023
                             &
                W.P.(C). No. 29123 of 2023

(An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India)

                             ---------------
W.P.(C). No. 25632 2023
Rajendra Biswal & Ors                          ......        Petitioners

                               -Versus-

State of Odisha and Others             ....     Opposite Parties

W.P.(C). No. 29123 of 2023

Surendra Sethi & Others                          .....      Petitioners

                       -Versus-

State of Odisha & Others              ..... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
________________________________________________

  For Petitioner   : Mr. A.Bhoi, Advocate for Petitioner


   For Opp. Party : Mr. P.K.Parhi, DSGI

                      Mr. S.N.Pattnaik,
                      Additional Government Advocate for
                      the State
                      Mr. S.K. Dalai, Advocate for
                      Sarpanch, Gopinathpur G.P.

_______________________________________________________



                                                Page 1 of 19
       CORAM:
           JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                                JUDGMENT

24rd OCTOBER, 2025

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

Both the writ applications involve common

questions of fact and law and being heard together are

disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The Government of India floated a scheme called

Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Gramin (PMAY-G) for

providing funding benefits to eligible beneficiaries for

construction of Pucca houses. The scheme was intended

for those households who had Katcha houses. The

Director, Special Projects, Government of Odisha, vide

circular dated 12.01.2023 instructed all the Collectors to

ensure wide publicity and display of list of provisionally

sanctioned beneficiaries out of Awaas + list.

3. The petitioners are residents of Gopinathpur Gram

Panchayat under Chandbali Block in Bhadrak district.

They claim to be eligible for benefits under the scheme.

Pursuant to the circular issued by the Director, Special

Projects, a block level inquiry team was formed for each

Gram Panchayat, pursuant to which a probable

beneficiary list containing 291 beneficiaries of

Gopinathpur Gram Panchayat was published on

16.01.2023. Objections were invited from the public from

16.01.2023 to 24.01.2023. Certain objections were

received from the public regarding the inclusion of

ineligible beneficiaries, for which a team formed at the

block level conducted an inquiry. In the inquiry, 33

beneficiaries were found ineligible, while the remaining

258 were found eligible. The matter was therefore placed

before the Gram Sabha of Gopinathpur Gram Panchayat

held on 30.01.2023, which approved the list of 258

eligible beneficiaries. The names of the petitioners of both

the writ applications found place in the said list. Work

orders were issued to the beneficiaries, including the

petitioners on 19.06.2023. The first installment

amounting to Rs. 40,000/- was released in favour of

some of the petitioners but the remaining installments

were withheld. When the petitioners approached the

authorities for the release of the first

installment/subsequent installments they were informed

that the same had been withheld on the basis of a written

complaint submitted by one Malatilata Sahoo and others

of the locality on 27.06.2023. The said complaint was

with regard to inclusion of purportedly ineligible

beneficiaries in the list. According to the petitioners, the

complaint submitted by Malatilata Sahoo and others,

copy of which has been obtained by them under the RTI

Act was based on false and misleading statements and by

using forged signatures. A grievance petition was

therefore submitted to the BDO as well as the IIC,

Chandabali Police Station by the members of the public

against said Malatilata Sahoo. However, ignoring the

grievance raised by the public, a second inquiry was

conducted and a report was submitted on 07.07.2023,

wherein the petitioners were held ineligible for the

benefits and in case of the petitioners in favour of whom

the first installment had been sanctioned, orders were

issued directing them to refund the said amount.

4. On such facts, the petitioners have filed these writ

applications impugning the second inquiry report as also

the notice issued for refunding the first installment

benefits and freezing of the bank accounts and have

prayed to issue directions to the authorities to issue work

orders/release subsequent installments.

5. The stand of the State Government, as reflected in the

counter affidavit and additional affidavit filed in W.P.(C).

No. 25632 of 2023 (adopted in W.P.(C) No. 29123 of

2023) is that the petitioners were declared as eligible

beneficiaries through proper process. As per the inquiry

conducted after field verification, the genuinely eligible

beneficiaries were included in the selection list, while

others were rejected. Pursuant to the instructions issued

by the Director, Special Projects on 12.01.2023 followed

by that of the Collector, Bhadrak, the BDO, Chandbali

formed a block level inquiry team for each gram

panchayat. On 16.01.2023, the PMAY-G probable

beneficiary list for Gopinathpur Gram Panchayat was

prepared and displayed in the Gram Panchayat.

Objections were invited from public from 16.01.2023 to

24.01.2023. Complaints were received against some of

the beneficiaries, which were inquired into by the team

formed at the block level. Thus, out of 291 beneficiaries,

33 were reported as ineligible and 258 as eligible.

Accordingly, the matter being placed before the gram

sabha on 30.01.2023, the list was approved. Work orders

were issued and in some cases, the first installment of

the benefit was also released. At this stage, objections

were received challenging the eligibility of 216

beneficiaries, basing on which the BDO, Chandabali

formed a team comprising the BSSO, JE, two PEOs and

two GRSs. The team conducted further inquiry and found

only 124 beneficiaries out of 216 to be eligible while 92

were found ineligible. On such basis, the online work

orders of the ineligible beneficiaries were auto cancelled.

Earlier, the PR and DW Department, vide letter dated

30.05.2023 had issued instructions to further verify the

PMAY beneficiaries in the Awaas + list to ensure that no

ineligible household is granted the benefit.

6. The petitioners have filed a rejoinder, inter alia

reiterating their contentions raised in the writ

applications. Additionally, it is stated that the inquiry

conducted on the basis of complaints submitted by

Malatilata Sahoo and others was conducted without

involving the petitioners. Though the public, in the

grievance petition dated 08.07.2023 requested for re-

inquiry involving the beneficiaries/petitioners, the same

was not considered. The report submitted by the inquiry

team basing on which the benefits granted to the

beneficiaries including the petitioners were stopped is

false. The inquiry does not reflect the factual position in

respect of the individual beneficiaries as regards their

eligibility or otherwise. Moreover, the petitioner Nos.

4,12,25,32,41,44,49,53,58 and 64 have been granted

further benefits during pendency of the writ applications,

as the authorities were convinced that the so-called

second inquiry report was wrong.

7. Heard Mr.A.Bhoi, learned counsel for the petitioners,

Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA for the State and Mr.

S.K.Dalai, learned counsel appearing for Sarpanch of

Gopinathpur Gram Panchayat. Also heard Mr. P.K.Parhi,

learned DSGI appearing for Government of India.

8. Mr. Bhoi would argue that having once declared the

petitioners as eligible for the benefits under the scheme

as per due process of law, it is not open to the authorities

to turn around and subsequently label them as ineligible.

Not only that the petitioners were declared eligible but

also work orders were issued in their favour and in some

cases, the first installment amounts were released. Mr.

Bhoi would further argue that the authorities could not

have acted upon a private complaint to conduct a further

inquiry into the matter. Even otherwise, the so-called

second inquiry was conducted without involving the

petitioners and the report was completely based on

incorrect facts.

9. Mr. P.K.Parhi, learned DSGI would submit that the

Government of India grants financial assistance for the

scheme which is to be worked out by the State

Government as per the guidelines framed in this regard

by both the Central and the State Governments. It is

therefore for the State Government to satisfy this Court

that the guidelines were properly followed.

10. Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA on the other hand

would submit that even though the petitioners were

treated as eligible but subsequently it came to light that

they had been wrongly treated as such. The private

complaint was properly inquired into by a team

comprising of several responsible officers, who gave their

findings in respect of each of the beneficiaries of the list.

Since the scheme is intended only for eligible

beneficiaries, all those who are ineligible were weeded

out.

11. Mr. S.K.Dalai would submit that the Standard

Operating Procedure for sanction of PMAY-(G) houses

issued by the Director, Special Projects is in consonance

with the Framework for Implementation of PMAY of the

Government of India. Mr. Dalai refers to the relevant

provisions of the Government of India guidelines as well

as the SOP of the State to submit that once the procedure

laid down therein has been strictly followed, there is no

scope for entertaining any private complaint or for

conducting any further inquiry reopening the issue of

eligibility of beneficiaries. Moreover, the original list of

eligible beneficiaries was itself based on field inquiry and

was duly approved by the Gram Sabha. The guidelines do

not provide for any further inquiry after approval by the

Gram Sabha.

12. From the rival contentions, it is observed that the

facts of the case are not disputed inasmuch as the names

of the petitioners were included in the list of 291 eligible

beneficiaries. It would be apposite at this stage to refer to

the relevant guidelines. Chapter 4 of the Government of

India guidelines refers to identification and selection of

beneficiaries. Paragraph 4.3 and 4.4 being relevant are

reproduced below:

"4.3 Preparation of Priority Lists 4.3.1 Separate priority lists, satisfying the principles of prioritization enunciated in para 4.2, will be generated for SC, ST and Others for each Gram Panchayat / Village Sabha or lowest unit of local self-government as recognized by the respective State/UT Panchayat Act, subject to availability of eligible households. System generated category wise ranked priority list could be downloaded from the programme MIS- AwaasSoft. Thereon, the lists are to be

circulated to the concerned Gram Panchayats for verification by Gram Sabha.

4.4 Verification of Priority Lists by Gram Sabha (or Village Sabha or the lowest unit of local self- government as recognized by the respective State/UT Panchayat Act) 4.4.1 Once the category wise system generated priority lists are made available and suitably publicized, a Gram Sabha/Village Sabha or the meeting of the lowest unit of local self-government as recognized by the respective State/UT Panchayat Act, will be convened. The Gram Sabha/Village Sabha or the lowest unit of local self- government as recognized by the respective State/UT Panchayat Act, will verify the facts based on which the household has been identified as eligible. If the inclusion has been done based on wrong facts or if the household has constructed a pucca house or has been allotted a house under any government scheme or permanently migrated since the time of the survey or has died leaving no successor, the Gram Sabha/ Village Sabha or the lowest unit of local self-government as recognized by the respective State/UT Panchayat Act, shall delete the name of such household from the system generated priority list. The list of deleted households, including reasons for deletion, will form part of the minutes of the Gram Sabha/Village Sabha or the lowest unit of local self-government as recognized by the respective State/UT Panchayat Act.

4.4.1.1 However, if a household has temporarily migrated or are not traceable after preparation of the Permanent Wait List, the State/UT Government may identify the Gram Panchayats where such cases exist and organize the Gram Sabhas of the respective Gram Panchayats for re-verification in the PWL, prepared. The Gram Sabha during the meeting may review such cases and re-prioritize such households and place them at the end of the PWL, so that allotment of houses to such beneficiaries can be made later. Gram Sabha resolution re-prioritizing the PWL needs to be uploaded on AwaasSoft and the priority in the PWL may be changed accordingly. Further "beneficiaries unwilling to construct house" is also a category for deletion/remand from the PWL of PMAY-G as per details given in the Remand Module Guidelines detailed in para 4.6.5.

4.4.2 In case there is a tie with more than one household within a sub group having the same deprivation score, the Gram Sabha / Village Sabha or the lowest unit of local self- government as recognized by the respective State/UT Panchayat Act, will rank the households by according priority on the basis of the following parameters:

1) Households with widows and next-of-kin of members of defence/paramilitary/police forces killed in action;

ii) Households where a member is suffering from leprosy or cancer and People living with HIV (PLHIV).

ii) Households with a single girl child.

iv) Beneficiary families of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, commonly known as Forest Rights Act.

v) Transgender persons.

4.4.3 If none of the above parameters mentioned in para 4.4.2 are applicable, the Gram Sabha / Village Sabha or the lowest unit of local self-government as recognized by the respective State/UT Panchayat Act, may decide the ranking and record proper justification for the same. The ranking should be complete with each household being assigned a distinct rank."

Thus, it is the responsibility of the Gram Sabha to verify

the facts based on which the household has been

identified as eligible and if the inclusion has been done

on wrong facts, it shall delete the names of such

households from system generated priority list. The SOP

circulated by the Director, Special Projects more or less

conforms to the above guidelines, inasmuch as it

provides for filing of objections after preparation of the

list and inquiry relating to such objections followed by

approval by the Gram Sabha. The relevant clauses of the

SOP being V, VI, VII and VIII are reproduced below.

v. Inquiry of the objections All the complains received shall be enquired into by a three- member team of Block consisting of one local GRS/PEO and two other staff not in charge of the concerned GP.

Block shall constitute the team and enter the name of team members of each GP In RH Portal Progress of enquiry by each team will be monitored through RH Portal.

The team shall conduct enquiry immediately after receipt of any complaint. Enquiry by the team can be within the publication period and shall be over latest by 28th January 2023.

vi. Approval by Gram Sabha Special Gram Sabha shall be convened within a week from the completion of enquiry. Gram Sabha shall approve the list of eligible HHs and the priority setting of the beneficiaries placed in the same rank in the system generated list. vi. Ineligible HHs Deletion The Ineligible HHs approved by Gram Sabha shall be deleted from the Awaas + list within 48 hours from Gram Sabha list. viii. Issuance of Work Order.

Work Order will be issued to the eligible beneficiaries after completion of enquiry and approval of the final list by Gram Sabha."

Thus, the decision of the Gram Sabha appears to be final

in this regard. In other words, once the Gram Sabha has

given its approval to the final list, there is no other

provision to reopen or re-inquire into the list. In the

instant case, as admitted in the counter affidavit, the

Gram Sabha of Gopinathpur Gram Panchayat considered

the list of eligible beneficiaries including the objections

received and in its resolution dated 30.01.2023 approved

the list of 258 beneficiaries as being eligible. Thus, no

further justification, much less any legal basis for

reopening the matter has been made out. Reference has

been made to letter dated 30.05.2023 of the Principal

Secretary to Government in PR and DW Department,

wherein directions have been issued to the Collectors to

further verify the eligibility of the households before

issuing work orders to ensure that no ineligible

household is sanctioned PMAY-G benefits. The above

direction is obviously contrary to the Government of India

guidelines and SOP referred to hereinbefore and can

therefore have no legal sanctity.

13. Having held as above, this Court would hasten to add

that notwithstanding the guidelines, an allegation of

fraud can always be looked into as fraud vitiates all acts.

But then nothing has been placed before this Court to

even suggest that any kind of fraud was involved in

preparation of the list of eligible beneficiaries and/or in

the approval of the list by Gram Sabha.

14. This Court has perused the complaint submitted by

one Malatilata Sahoo and several others. It simply says

that some ineligible persons have been treated as eligible

beneficiaries contrary to the guidelines. The complaint is

at most vague and inconclusive. Moreover, it was

submitted on 27.06.2023 that is, long after the period

granted for submission of complaints i.e. 16.01.2023 to

24.01.2023 and at that stage work orders had been

issued and in some cases the first installment had also

been released. Assuming for a moment that the

complaint was correct, it implicitly means that the field

inquiry conducted by responsible officers of the

Government, after receiving objections from the public at

the relevant time was incorrect. Nothing has been placed

before this Court to show as to how the field inquiry was

wrong or that the same was actuated with malafides. It

has also not been shown as to if any action was taken

against the persons conducting the field inquiry at the

relevant time if at all it was found that their enquiry was

wrong. Since the report of the field inquiry was

considered and approved by the Gram Sabha and

nothing has been placed before this Court to show as to

how the decision of the Gram Sabha was wrong, it

becomes obvious that no reliance can be placed on the

so-called second inquiry report.

15. This Court finds that the second inquiry conducted

on the directions of the BDO was an ex-parte one without

involving the petitioners and other beneficiaries, who are

declared ineligible. Such inquiry was also on the face of a

consistent demand made by the members of the public

on 08.07.2023 to conduct an inquiry involving the

beneficiaries, which was not acceded to. What is more

significant to note is that some of the petitioners, namely

at Serial Nos. 4,12,25,32,41,44,49,53,58 and 64 in

W.P.(C). No. 25632 2023 were granted benefits in the

form of release of the installments during pendency of

these writ applications notwithstanding the fact that the

second report states them as ineligible. This implies, the

authorities have themselves rejected the report at least in

so far as the above petitioners are concerned.

16. Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis of facts,

contentions raised and the discussion made, this Court is

of the considered view that the action of the authorities in

entertaining the private complaint long after approval the

list of beneficiaries by the Gram Sabha being contrary to

the relevant guidelines/SOP cannot be sustained in the

eye of law. The second inquiry report submitted on

07.07.2023 (Annexure-11) in both the writ applications

cannot also be sustained in the eye of law.

17. In the result, the writ applications are allowed. The

impugned second inquiry report dated 07.07.2023

(Annexure-11) is hereby quashed. The action taken to

deprive the benefits to the petitioner-beneficiaries

pursuant to such inquiry is hereby declared invalid. The

concerned authorities are directed to act upon the

resolution dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Gram Sabha

of Gopinathpur Gram Panchayat by releasing admissible

benefits under PMAY-G Scheme to the petitioner-

beneficiaries without any further delay. The whole

exercise should be completed within six weeks from the

date of production of certified copy of this order by the

petitioners.

...............................

Sashikanta Mishra, Judge

Deepak