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

2025 Supreme(Ori) 495

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. Sahoo, V. Narasingh, JJ.
Registrar (Judicial), Orissa High Court - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & others – Opposite Parties
Suo Motu W.P.(C) PIL No.2140 of 2020
Decided On : 20-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate President, OHCBA, Mr. Avijit Pattnaik Advocate Secretary, OHCBA, Er. N.K. Mohanty, Amicus Curiae, Mr. Bijay Kumar Dash, Amicus Curiae
For the Opposite Party :Mr. Debasis Nayak-A Addl. Govt. Advocate & Advocate for C.M.C.

Public interest is paramount in administrative decisions, emphasizing safety, compliance, and welfare in municipal infrastructure projects.

Headnote:(A) Orissa Municipal Corporation Act - Relevant Provisions - Grievances concerning construction of a vending zone and unauthorized gate on apartment complex - The Court directed an inspection to ascertain compliance with municipal regulations and concerns raised by local residents regarding traffic disruption and rehabilitation of evicted vendors. (Paras 1-4).

(B) Public Interest - The Court emphasized the significance of public interest in administrative decision-making and directed thorough inspections to ensure safety and compliance with legal provisions in public infrastructure projects. (Paras 16-19).

(C) Appellate Review - The judgment details the need for adherence to approved plans and the implications of unauthorized modifications on public welfare. (Paras 16-19).

Facts of the case:
Residents of Meria Bazar, Ward No. 22 had grievances about the construction of a vending zone and another gate constructed by the apartment's owner without approval. The inspection revealed the new gate was likely obstructing vending zone operations aimed at rehabilitating evicted vendors for alleviating public order issues.

Findings of Court:
The unauthorized construction of the gate was viewed as detrimental to the objectives of the vending zone, and the work should continue as planned for public benefit.

Issues: The Court addressed whether the unauthorized gate obstructed the functioning of the new vending zone and confirmed compliance with municipal regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that public interest must guide municipal decisions and ensure safety, and unauthorized actions that hinder municipal projects must be curtailed.

Result: The Court permitted the completion of the vending zone construction, reaffirming public interest as the principal concern.

Table of Content
1. joint inspection regarding grievances of residents. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. intervenors' disagreements and arguments against report. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. analysis of government decisions on project supervision. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. importance of public interest in government policy. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. directions for project to address public needs. (Para 20 , 21)
6. order regarding follow-up procedures post opd. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)

ORDER :

These matters are taken up through Hybrid Signature Not Verified arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

GRIEVANCES OF RESIDENTS OF MERIA BAZAR- WARD NO.22 REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF A VENDING ZONE (I.A. NO.11619 OF 2025)

1.Regarding the grievances of residents of Meria Bazar-Ward No.22, this Court directed for a joint inspection to be conducted by team comprising of City Engineer and learned Advocate representing their area along with the Mr. B.N. Udgata, learned counsel.

2. On 25.07.2025, learned counsel for the CMC placed on record the inspection report dated 19.07.2025 of the City Engineer, CMC and the learned counsel representing the Advocates’ Committee also concurred with the report submitted by the City Engineer.

3. The relevant paragraphs of the inspection report dated 19.07.2025 of the City Engineer, CMC read as under:

“The team also verified the approved building plan and drawings of the said apartment complex. On verification, it is seen that as per the approved building plan, there is one gate on the northern side of the said apartment complex and another gate exists on the western side of the apartment complex. Hence, only the aforementioned two gates have been approved in the Building Plan and Drawing.

Recently, the owner of the said apartment complex has opened another gate to its southern side. This new gate has not been approved and does not exist in the approved building plan and drawing of the said apartment complex. From the discussions held with the local public, it came to light that after completion of the Box Drain, the owner of the said apartment complex has intentionally constructed and opened the third gate (New Gate) on the southern side of the apartment complex which opens right next to the under-construction Vending Zone.

From the location and the manner in which the new third gate has been built, it seems the intention of the owner of the complex is to prevent the vending zone from operating by not allowing the proposed shops under construction to open. It is pertinent to mention here that the said vending zone is being specifically constructed for the purpose of rehabilitation of the vendors of the locality who have been recently evicted from the said site since vending was being carried out in a disorganized manner leading to traffic congestion and chaos. The intention of the CMC behind creating the vending zone is two-fold to rehabilitate the displaced vendors so that their livelihood is not adversely affected and ensure smooth flow of traffic in the area.

The width of the road on the approved exit gate on the western side of the apartment complex is about 21 to 31 feet. Similarly, the width of the road on the approved northern gate is about 18’ 6". Hence, the roads adjacent to the gates as per the approved building plan and drawing of the said apartment complex are wide enough for comfortable ingress and egress of the occupants and their vehicles.”

4. A reply dated 01.08.2025 to the inspection report of the CMC, Cuttack has been filed by the Intervenors, wherein it is stated as follows:

1. That it is humbly submitted that the inspection report filed by the Opp. Party is a complete biased report, misleading and not justified to the residents of Ward No.22 at Meria Bazar area.

2. That it is humbly submitted by the Intervenors that the Hon’ble High Court had directed the Opp. Party on dated 18.07.2025 to visit the area at Ward No.22 Meria bazaar and inspect the area and if necessary suitable alteration be made to the exis

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