Chandrakanta Rout vs State Of Odisha And Other

Â

K.R. Mohapatra, J

This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.

The Petitioner in this writ petition apprehending demolition of his Prawn Cultivation pond by the District Level Aquaculture Committee,

Kendrapara-Opposite Party No.3 has filed this writ petition.

It is submitted by Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner that in view of the provisions under Section 11(d) of the Coastal Aquaculture

Authority Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’), the Petitioner is entitled to a notice by the District Aquaculture Committee before undertaking

eviction/demolition of the Prawn Cultivation pond.

In the case at hand, the Opposite Party No.3 without issuing any notice under Section 11(d) of the Act and without following due procedure of law

are contemplating to demolish the Prawn Cultivation pond of the Petitioner forcibly. Hence, the Petitioner finding no other alternative has filed this writ

petition.

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that he has no instruction in the matter. However, the writ petition has

been filed on mere apprehension and there is no material on record to show that the authorities are contemplating demolition of the Prawn Cultivation

pond of the Petitioner. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the Petitioner apprehends eviction, he

should bring the same to the notice of the Collector, Kendrapara who is the Chairman of the District Level Aquaculture Committee.

Accordingly, it is directed that in the event the Petitioner files a grievance petition/representation before the Collector, Kendrapara, who is the

Chairman of the District Level Aquaculture Committee, Kendrapara within a period of two weeks hence along with an authenticated copy of this

order, he shall do well to consider the same in accordance with law, giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and pass a reasoned order thereon,

as expeditiously as possible preferably, within a period of eight weeks therefrom and communicate the same to the Petitioner forthwith.

Till a decision is taken on the representation, if filed within the stipulated period as aforesaid, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner

for demolition of his Prawn Cultivating pond.

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order

available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide

Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.