Locus standi of an intervenor in a proceeding under the Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982 - Requirement of a reasoned order - Principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

A. Pasayat, J. - Appellate order passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government in the Housing and Urban Development Department (in short, 'the Commissioner') in an appeal u/s 91 (2)[wrongly indicated in the impugned order to be u/s 91(1)] of the Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982 (in short 'the Act') is underchallenge in this writ application by Smt. Khirodini Sahoo (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner').

2. Factual backdrop leading to filing of this application is essentially as follows :

On the allegation that the petitioner had constructed her ground floor over a plinth area of 1436 sq. ft. and first floor over a similar area without leaving any set-back, a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by the Secretary of Cuttack Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the CDA'). It was alleged that such construction was in violation of the plan as approved by the competent authority. Notice in terms of Section 91(1) of the Act, and direction to stop construction in terms of Section 92(1) of the Act was issued, and the petitioner was required to show-cause as to why action for unauthorised construction shall not be taken. Reply to such notice was submitted by the petitioner. Her stand was that construction was made within stipulated time as per approved plan. The Secretary noticed that one Arjun Charan Palai, who has made an application in this proceeding to be impleaded as an intervener, had made original complaint on the basis of which action was initiated against petitioner. Said Arjun Charan Palai is described as 'objector'. His locus standi shall be considered infra. After show-cause reply was submitted by the petitioner, the objector filed an application to be impleaded as a party in the proceeding, and sa(sic)e was allowed by the Secretary. Date of appearance of parties was fixed by the Secretary to 25-6-1993, when the objector appeared, but petitioner did not. An application for adjournment was filed by her which was rejected, and the matter was disposed of on perusal of certain documents filed by the objector. The Planning Member of CD A suggested for demolition of the unauthorised construction. The Secretary concurred with such suggestion of the Planning Member and by his order dated 25-6-1993 directed demolition, subject to confirmation by the Vice-Chairman. On 18-8-1993, the Vice-chairman endorsed the view. An appeal was carried by the petitioner before the Commissioner which was dismissed by the latter with following observations :

"Planning Member, CDA contends that the appellant has made unauthorised construction. Therefore, the demolition order has been passed. On verification it is revealed that both the appellant and the intervenor has made unauthorised construction. It is in a Basti area.

Heard all the parties. Perused the joint inspection report, the documents submitted by the appellant and the petition filed by the intervenor. The excess construction beyond the approved plan is illegal. The order passed by the CDA is up-held. The CDA is directed to take action against the intervenor for his unauthorised construction. The appeal is dismissed."

It is to be noted here that an application for intervention was filed by Arjun Charan Palai before the Commissioner which was allowed.

3. Stand of the petitioner in the writ application is essentially two-fold, i. e. (i) the matter has been disposed of ex parte by the Secretary, and without a reasoned order by the Commissioner; and (ii) the applicant for intervention has no locus standi, and he should not have been impleaded either by the Secretary or the Commissioner. It is contended that the petitioner has been denied adequate opportunity of taking part in the proceeding and materials placed by petitioner have not been taken into consideration. Stand of CDA is that the Secretary had rightly refused to entertain the application for adjournment, and on the basis of materials placed by the applicant for intervention, and CDA,