Nityananda Dalai And Another vs State Of Odisha And Others

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Pattanaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, his clients are eligible to be beneficiaries under the housing scheme. However, other persons (opposite party nos. 5 to 7) have been listed but his clients’ names not included. He submits, in the circumstances his clients made representation dated 25th January, 2023 to the Collector. He submits, there be direction for the representation to be considered.

Ms. Patnayak, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, the representation will be duly dealt with.

On query from Court Mr. Pattanaik submits, his client has not been told why their names were not be included in the list.

Opposite party no.2 is directed to consider and deal with petitioners’ representation dated 25th January, 2023. Petitioners will forthwith communicate this order and copy of the representation to said opposite party. In event said opposite party has not included petitioners’ names only on ground of limit in number of beneficiaries, disbursement of the benefits will remain stayed till two weeks after communication of the result of consideration. Otherwise, within three weeks from communication petitioners must be told as to why their names were not included or that it has since been included.

The writ petition is disposed of.

…………………………………