Pravat Maharana vs State of Odisha And Others

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, there is admission in the counter that his client is entitled to the benefit under the housing scheme. However, State purports to contend that the portal has closed and when it is reopened, his client will be included in the list for getting the benefit, at a future date. He submits, his client apprehends that if and when the portal is reopened, the scheme will be changed to aid the beneficiaries in obtaining financial accommodation to built pucca houses. In the circumstances, State should be compelled to include his client’s name in the present list of eligible candidates, due to get the benefit.

Ms. Pattanayak, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, petitioner’s name was not included in the list. The names included were uploaded in the portal. It being a Central scheme implemented by State, the portal stood closed by the Centre. On enquiry upon grievance made by petitioner, he was found to be eligible. She has no instruction regarding change of the scheme on reopening of the portal. She submits, as and when the portal is reopened, petitioner’s name will be uploaded.

Court accepts admission of mistake and the assurance made by State, to include petitioner’s name, when the portal reopens. In event terms of the scheme are changed on the reopening, petitioner will be entitled to make representation to the State for compensation, for it to deal with. It goes without saying that petitioner’s name must be uploaded on reopening of the portal.

With above observations the writ petition is disposed of.

………………………………….