SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Ori) 77

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
B.R.Sarangi, V. Narasingh, JJ.
Rama Chandra Mohapatra - Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha & Ors. - Respondents
W. P. (C) No. 24940 of 2021
Decided On : 15-02-2022

Advocates Appeared:
M/s. Basudev Pujari and P.K. Sahoo, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. A.K. Mishra, Addl. Government Advocate, (Opp Parties 1 To 4, 6 & 8) Mr. O. P. Sahu, Advocate, (Opp Parties 9 & 10), for the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Collector, Puri to nominate the executing agency and the widened interpretation of 'locus standi' to allow a person prejudicially affected by an act or omission to file a writ petition.

Headnote:

Special Problem Funds - Urban Development - Orissa Municipal Act, 1950, Rule 338, Rule 352 - The court quashed the order dated 31.05.2021 and the consequential work orders dated 02.07.2021. The court directed the competent authorities to execute the rest 59 projects adhering to the Scheme of Special Problem Funds 2020-21 and the government rules applicable thereto, so far as NAC, Pipili is concerned, by issuing work orders through the competent authority.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Ex-Chairman of Notified Area Council (NAC), Pipili, filed a writ petition to quash the order dated 31.05.2021 and work orders dated 02.07.2021. The projects were sanctioned under the Special Problem Funds (SPF) scheme, and the petitioner sought direction for execution of the works through the line department by e-tendering process.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Collector, Puri, and the Block Development Officer, Pipili, did not have the jurisdiction to divert the projects to the B.D.O., Pipili, and the order and work orders issued were without jurisdiction. The court also noted that 35 projects had already been completed and did not want to dislodge them despite irregularities.

Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the Collector, Puri to pass the order diverting the projects, the authority of the B.D.O., Pipili as the executing agency, and the petitioner's locus standi to file the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Collector, Puri did not have the jurisdiction to nominate the B.D.O., Pipili as the executing agency, and the B.D.O., Pipili had no authority to execute the projects. The court also widened the meaning of 'locus standi' to allow the petitioner to file the writ petition based on being prejudicially affected by the act or omission of the authority.

Final Decision: The court quashed the order dated 31.05.2021 and the consequential work orders dated 02.07.2021 and directed the competent authorities to execute the rest 59 projects adhering to the Scheme of Special Problem Funds 2020-21 and the government rules applicable thereto, so far as NAC, Pipili is concerned, by issuing work orders through the competent authority.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. - The petitioner, who is the Ex-Chairman of Notified Area Council (NAC), Pipili and also a local inhabitant, has filed this writ petition to quash the order dated 31.05.2021 passed by opposite party no.4- Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Puri in Annexure-5, by which the Executive Officer, Pipili NAC was instructed not to execute the projects sanctioned earlier in favour of him and to refund Rs.237.50 lakh to the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Puri for re- release of funds to B.D.O., Pipili for execution of the projects. He further seeks to quash Annexure-10 series, the work orders dated 02.07.2021 issued by opposite party no.8-Block Development Officer, Pipili for execution of various projects. He also seeks direction to opposite party no.4 to pass an order to execute the works under the list of Annexure-5 through line department, i.e. Housing and Urban Development Department by e- tendering process as per the Special Problem Funds (SPF) guidelines under Annexure-2. The further prayer of the petitioner is to direct opposite party nos. 4 and 5 to execute the 94 numbers of projects through tender process basing on the letters of the learned Advocate General and opposite party no.1, based on the judgment of this Court vide Annexure-9 series.

2. The background facts leading to filing of the present writ petition, succinctly put, are as follows:-

2.1 For development of the inhabitants of NAC, Pipili in the district of Puri, 94 numbers of development works had been sanctioned by opposite party no.4 under the Special Problem Funds (SPF) scheme. But due to the by-election for the Pipili Assembly Constituency, model code of conduct was imposed. As a consequence thereof, execution of the works was stopped. Due to the death of a candidate of a National Political Party, the election process was deferred for indefinite period and the model code of conduct was also withdrawn. For taking up small and essential projects of local importance involving special nature of problems, in the absence of which the development process would remain incomplete, the Government of Odisha had introduced a scheme styled as Special Problem Funds in the year 1997-98.

2.2 The scheme aimed at taking up small and essential projects of local importance involving special nature of problems. The works were of the nature of providing missing links to the existing development infrastructure as well as repair, modernization and expansion works, particularly for the purposes of improvement of existing educational institutions- both Government as well as Private-, roads, culverts, bridges, embankments, public religious places, cultural organizations as well as construction of new projects which would contribute to the overall development of community and well being of the general public for which funds are not available. The funds for the Scheme 'Special Problem Funds' were to be provided in the State Plan Budget of the Planning and Coordination Department in the form of grant-in-aid each year. The rules and procedures laid down thereunder would be applicable to sanction and utilization of funds under the scheme provided in the State Budget from 2003-04 and onwards.

2.3 After due approval and sanction from the department of Planning and Convergence, Government of Odisha for implementation of various approved projects under Special Problem Funds (SPF)-11th Phase during the year 2020-21, the works were going to be executed within NAC, Pipili. For approval from the Accountant General (A&E) Odisha, Bhubaneswar, the department of Planning and Convergence had issued a letter on 13.02.2021 with some specific terms and conditions for execution of works. Serial No. 1 of the specific terms and conditions indicates that the approved projects should be implemented through executing agencies as per the approved rules. The Executive Officer, NAC, Pipili- opposite party no.7, due to dearth of manpower, issued a letter on 24.05.2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top