IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.13398 of 2024 Niket Sahu …. Petitioner Mr. Amar Kumar Mohanty, Advocate -Versus-

State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Swain, AGA Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate (O.P. No.2)

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

10.12.2025 Order No.

03. 1. Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 besides Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State.

2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to opposite party No.2 to allot a shop room in his favour in the newly constructed Panposh Market disposing of the representation i.e. Annexure-6 received from him in that regard.

3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the shop rooms, which were demolished during the year 1992, a decision was taken by the Municipality to consider allotment of shops to the petitioner’s father and others in the newly constructed market complex. The further submission is that a resolution was passed with a decision taken by the Municipality on 22^nd November, 1992 to consider the allotment of the shop rooms in respect of the displaced owners in terms of the payments to be made by them stipulated therein. The contention is that according to the resolution as at Annexure-1, the first installment was received from the father of the petitioner on 7^th December, 1992 and while claiming so, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel refers to Annexure-2, a copy of the receipt received by the Rourkela Municipality. It is contended that in spite of several representations, allotment of a shop room was not considered in favour of the petitioner’s father and one of such representations is at Annexure-3, hence, a direction may perhaps be issued to opposite party No.2 to consider such allotment in the Super Market since the market complex was demolished in the meantime.

4. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 refers to the counter affidavit and submits that the record with regard to the resolution i.e. Annexure-1 claimed by the petitioner is not available with them, however, notices were issued for refund of the amount received from the shop owners and stating so, he refers to Annexure-B/2 to the same. It is also submitted that there has been a paper publication by opposite party No.2 with notices issued in connection therewith. In reply to the above, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a shop room is available in the Super Market and in the meantime, illegal transfer of shop No.83 was considered by the Rourkela Municipality which was objected to by the petitioner as per Annexure-9 series. A copy of the notice dated 26^th November, 2025 in respect of the transfer of the alleged shop is at Annexure-8 and referring to the same, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel further submits that the petitioner may be considered for allotment of the same with a direction to opposite party No.2.

5. The resolution is of the year 1992 and it is claimed that several representations have been made and the same yielded no result. The submission is that the market complex at Panposh was demolished sometime in 1992 and thereafter, the Super Market has been built upon the same and therein, the petitioner may be allotted a shop room as his father was one among the original shop owners when the shops were demolished followed by the resolution at Annexure-1.

6. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 submits that he has no instruction to confirm whether any such shop room is available to be allotted in favour of the petitioner. 7. Considering the above submissions, this Court is of the view that the grievance of the petitioner for allotment of a shop room in the Super Market subject to availability and eligibility is required to be considered with a decision thereon at the earliest but within a stipulated period considering such demand pending since long.

8. Accordingly, it is ordered.

9. In the result, the writ petition is d