The court affirmed that show cause notices must align with statutory exclusions and established recommendations, and unlawful issuance thereof cannot stand.

JUDGMENT :

BISWANATH RATH, J.

1. This writ petition involves the following prayer:-

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi to the opposite parties and if the opposite parties will fail to show cause or shown insufficient cause, made the said Rule absolute by directing the opposite parties to deliver possession of the plot in question to the petitioner and further be pleased to quash para-5 of the Resolution dated 30.01.2015 under Annexure-10 and further be pleased to pass any other order/ orders as may be deemed fit and proper.”

2. Taking this Court to the pleadings made in the writ petition and the show cause notice at Annexure-4 appears to have been attended to by the Petitioner through his response vide Annexure-5, Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is already exception of allottees under the discretionary quota under one plot/house/flat through fair means and by following the prescribed procedure and provisions for such transfer, from being undertaken for consideration for cancellation of such allotment. Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the exclusion of this particular category from the undertaking of working out raised through the recommendation involving the Task Force, submitted that there is no question of issuing of any show cause depending on the resolution vide Annexure-10 as well as Annexure-A/4. Reading through the exclusion particularly towards end of the sub-clause 7 of clause 48 of the recommendation in the report of the Task Force at Annexure-9, Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that for there is clear exclusion of the particular category, undertaking of exercise, if any, following the resolution at Annexure-10 and Annexure- A/4 should also exclude the Petitioner as the Petitioner’s case is already excluded from such exercise.

It is, in the circumstance, Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that issuing of show cause notice to the Petitioner at Annexure-4 itself is bad in law. Taking this Court to the pleadings in the writ petition, Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner made an attempt to establish that here the Petitioner involved is a single allottee and there is no allegation as of now involving single allottee through discretionary quota like that of the Petitioner. In this contingency Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner sought for setting aside of the show cause notice at Annexure-4 for the same being contrary to the Task Force report and also for wrong application of the resolution at Annexure-10 even the communication vide Annexure-A/4.

3. To the contrary Mr. Ghose, learned State Counsel for the contesting State-Opposite Parties while not disputing existence of the Task Force report at Annexure-9 and not disputing the recommendations of the Task Force therein, also have no dispute with regard to the benefit claimed by the Petitioner in the last paragraph of Sub-clause 7 of Clause- 48 therein and the exclusion thereof. Mr. Ghose, learned State Counsel, however, taking this Court to the resolution at Annexure-10 submitted that this resolution was issued in framing a mechanism in the matter of implementation of the report of the Task Force. Reading through the Clause-10 therein Mr. Ghose, learned State contended that for the provision in the resolution at Annexure-10, the General Administration Department was to work-out the modalities of implementation of the Task Force recommendation in a time bound manner in consultation with the Law Department as well as the Advocate General. It is on t