[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Prakash Chandra Das vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 10 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.31165 of 2022
Prakash Chandra Das .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No. 10.02.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. The Petitioner, Prakash Chandra Das, an Ex-Indian Navy
personnel, has approached this Court by filing the present Writ
Petition seeking allotment of a plot pursuant to an advertisement
issued by the General Administration Department. In response
thereto, he submitted his application on 13.04.1987 within the
stipulated time. A lottery was subsequently conducted on
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
23.02.1989, and the results were published in the odiya daily
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior
Stenographer
newspaper ‚The Samaj‛ on 23.09.1989, wherein the Petitioner's
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 12-Feb-2026 19:09:38
name figured as a successful allottee. However, despite such
declaration and notwithstanding repeated representations
submitted by him to the competent authorities, no formal
allotment order was ever issued in his favour, compelling him to
invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking appropriate
relief.
3. Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner,
submits that the Petitioner, an Ex-Indian Navy personnel, had
applied for allotment of a residential plot at Bhubaneswar
pursuant to the advertisement issued by the General
Administration Department, Bhubaneswar, in accordance with
the eligibility criteria prescribed therein. It is contended that the
Petitioner fulfilled all requisite conditions and had submitted his
application within time, with a legitimate expectation of
consideration under the scheme formulated by the Government.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the
State of Orissa conducted a lottery amongst the eligible
applicants pursuant to the said advertisement, in which the
Petitioner was declared successful. The result of the lottery was
published in the Odia daily ‚The Samaj‛ dated 23.03.1989,
wherein the Petitioner's name appeared in the list of allottees
and he was shown to have been allotted a residential plot.
5. It is further submitted that notwithstanding such declaration
in the published result, no formal allotment letter was ever
communicated to the Petitioner by the competent authority. Left
with no alternative, the Petitioner addressed several
representations to the Joint Secretary (Administration), Ex-
Officio Director of Estate, General Administration Department,
requesting issuance of the formal allotment order in his favour in
terms of the lottery result. It is contended that the Petitioner,
having served the Indian Navy for fifteen years and retired in
1981, is homeless and requested expeditious allotment of the
plot. However, the authorities failed to respond to his
representations.
6. It is further contended that the Petitioner again wrote a letter
dated 17.11.1989 requesting clarification regarding the status of
the allotment pursuant to the lottery result published in daily
Newspaper 'The Samaj'.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the
G.A. Department sought verification of the Petitioner's service
particulars from the Rajya Sainik Board through Home
Department. By letter No.135558 dated 03.08.1992, the Home
Department confirmed the Petitioner's service credentials and
present address. Despite such verification, no allotment order
was issued nor was he called upon to deposit the premium.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner
persistently pursued the matter by submitting representations
before the Estate Officer, G.A. Department, as well as the Special
Secretary to Government; however, no decision was
communicated to him. In the absence of any response and being
unable to secure relief, he eventually returned to his native
village, Karadabadi.
9. It is further contended that the Petitioner subsequently came
to learn that his original application had been treated as
incomplete on the ground that it did not bear his signature and
was kept pending on that basis, without any notice or intimation
to him. Upon becoming aware of the said objection, the
Petitioner submitted a clarification letter dated 05.04.2000
explaining that the omission to sign the application was purely
inadvertent and unintentional. He further reiterated therein that
his credentials as Ex-Indian Navy personnel had already been
duly verified and certified by the Rajya Sainik Board, and thus
the alleged defect was merely technical in nature and ought not
to have resulted in denial of allotment. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner further submits that the letter dated 05.04.2000 was
received by the opposite party No.2, on 06.04.2000, but the
authorities did not take any decision in the matter.
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that only
after filing of the present Writ Petition did the G.A. Department
take the plea that the Petitioner had not appended his signature
on the application form submitted for allotment of the said plot.
It is contended that such objection is an afterthought, inasmuch
as no such deficiency was ever communicated to the Petitioner at
any point of time prior thereto, despite the publication of the
lottery result declaring him successful and despite his repeated
representations seeking issuance of the formal allotment order.
11. Learned counsel for the State contends that absence of
signature is a major defect rendering the application invalid
under the applicable allotment conditions. Learned counsel for
the State further submits that earlier the petitioner had filed a
grievance Petition dated 15.07.2024 before the Hon'ble Chief
Minister vide Jana Sunani Petition No.CMO2024634198, seeking
execution of the lease deed in respect of the said plot. The same
was rejected vide Deptt. Letter No. 27457, dated 18.09.2024.
12. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the
Petitioner had earlier approached the Permanent and
Continuous Lok Adalat seeking allotment of the said plot on the
basis of the lottery publication dated 23.03.1991 in the daily ‚The
Samaj‛. It is submitted that the said proceeding was taken up for
conciliation; however, no settlement could be arrived at between
the parties. Consequently, by order dated 16.01.2025, the Lok
Adalat closed the proceeding as unsuccessful, while granting
liberty to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for
redressal of his grievance, whereafter the present Writ Petition
has been instituted.
13. Learned counsel for the State further contends that, as on
date, no scheme is in operation under which the claim of the
Petitioner can be considered. It is further submitted that the
application submitted by the Petitioner was admittedly
unsigned, which, according to the State, constitutes a
fundamental and incurable defect in terms of the conditions
stipulated in the relevant allotment brochure. Such non-
compliance, it is urged, amounts to violation of the mandatory
terms governing the scheme and renders the Petitioner ineligible
for consideration. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the State. Perused the available materials on
record.
14.It is borne out from the record that the Petitioner's name was
published as a successful allottee in the Odia daily ‚The Samaj‛
dated 23.03.1989. Such publication was not a tentative or
provisional communication but a formal declaration pursuant to
the lottery conducted by the State. Once the Petitioner was
declared successful and his name was publicly notified, a vested
right may not have crystallized in the strict proprietary sense;
nevertheless, a legitimate expectation undeniably arose in his
favour that the consequential formal allotment would follow in
due course, subject to compliance with routine formalities.
15.The doctrine of legitimate expectation, as consistently
recognized by constitutional courts, operates as a facet of Article
14 of the Constitution, ensuring that State action remains fair,
non-arbitrary, and transparent. When the State, by its
representation or conduct, induces an expectation in a citizen, it
cannot subsequently defeat such expectation on hyper-technical
grounds, particularly after permitting the citizen to believe that
he has been selected through a duly conducted process.
16. If indeed the Petitioner's application was found to be
unsigned, such omission, assuming it to be correct, was at best a
curable procedural defect. The principles of natural justice
demanded that the authorities could have intimated the
Petitioner regarding such deficiency and afford him an
opportunity to rectify the same. The failure to communicate the
alleged defect, coupled with the prolonged silence of the
authorities despite repeated representations, amounts to
administrative arbitrariness. It is trite law that arbitrariness is
antithetical to equality and any State action that is capricious,
opaque, or unreasonable falls foul of Article 14.
17. The State cannot, after allowing decades to elapse and after
publicly declaring the Petitioner successful, seek to rely upon an
internal procedural lapse which was never communicated to the
applicant in order to deny him the benefit of allotment.
Administrative fairness requires prompt communication of
defects and an opportunity to cure them. Silence in the face of
repeated representations, followed by belated reliance on a
technical irregularity, undermines the rule of law and erodes
public confidence in governance.
18. Moreover, the subsequent issuance of letter dated 25.10.2025
by the Director of Estates & Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to
Government, G.A. Department, acknowledging and effecting
allotment of Plot No. 149 in favour of the Petitioner, itself reflects
that the State has ultimately recognized the legitimacy of his
claim. The fixation of premium and imposition of conditions for
deposit within a stipulated period further demonstrate that the
claim was not inherently untenable but was capable of being
regularized in accordance with policy.
19. In these circumstances, the plea of a decades-old technical
defect, never intimated and never treated as disqualifying at the
relevant time, cannot be permitted to defeat the substantive
rights flowing from a duly declared lottery result. The
constitutional mandate of fairness, reasonableness, and non-
arbitrariness must prevail over procedural rigidity, particularly
where the citizen is retired defense personnel who had acted
bona fide and pursued his claim diligently.
20. On this aspect, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
other similarly situated applicants, who were declared successful
pursuant to the very same lottery process, were allotted plots
upon payment of a premium of only Rs. 17,218/- at the relevant
point of time. It is contended that the Petitioner, having been
selected in the same lottery and standing on identical footing,
cannot now be subjected to an exorbitant premium determined
on the basis of present market rates after decades of
administrative inaction.
21. Learned counsel argues that such differential treatment
offends the guarantee of equality enshrined under Article 14 of
the Constitution. Once the Petitioner's name was published
along with other successful candidates, he formed part of a
homogeneous class. The State cannot, by reason of its own delay
or omission, impose a substantially higher financial burden upon
him while others similarly placed were granted allotment at the
original rate. Doing so would amount to penalizing the
Petitioner for no fault of his own and would render the action
arbitrary, discriminatory, and unsustainable in law. It is not
disputed that the Petitioner is an Ex-Indian Navy personnel,
having rendered fifteen years of disciplined service to the nation
before his retirement in the year 1981. His service credentials
have already been verified by the competent authority through
the Rajya Sainik Board. Being a former member of the Armed
Forces, he is entitled to fair, equitable and non-arbitrary
treatment at the hands of the State, particularly in matters
relating to rehabilitation and allotment of residential
accommodation.
22.At this juncture, learned counsel for the State, on instructions,
fairly submits that in the event the Petitioner submits a fresh
representation before the Director of Estates & Ex-Officio
Additional Secretary to Government, G.A. Department,
ventilating his grievance with regard to fixation of premium and
seeking consideration at the rate prevailing at the relevant time,
the same shall be examined and considered sympathetically,
strictly in accordance with law and applicable policy. It is
submitted that an appropriate decision shall be taken by the
competent authority upon due consideration of the factual and
legal aspects of the matter. Accordingly, this Court directs that if
the Petitioner approaches the Director of Estates & Ex-Officio
Additional Secretary to Government, G.A. Department, within
four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order, along with a representation seeking fixation of premium
at the rate applicable to similarly situated allottees and deposits
such amount as was originally fixed for the co-applicants, the
authority shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance
with law and in parity with similarly situated persons. The
decision shall be taken by a reasoned and speaking order.
23. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this
order.
24. In view of the above observations and directions, the Writ
Petition stands disposed of.
25. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
26. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Sipun
