The doctrine of legitimate expectation prohibits the State from denying rights based on uncommunicated procedural deficiencies, ensuring fairness and non-arbitrariness in administrative actions.

ORDER :

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 23.02.1989, and the results were published in the odiya daily newspaper "The Samaj" on 23.09.1989, wherein the Petitioner’s 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 t