Pruthiraj Jena vs State Of Odisha And Others

Mr. Pattanayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client stands affected by action plan to include digging for making a pond of 1.32 acres in Osakana Gram Panchayat. He submits, there is available Gochar land in other Gram Panchayats, where the plan be executed. To that end his client and others made representation dated 24th March, 2023 to the Block Development Officer (BDO). He submits, there be direction upon the authority to consider the representation.

Ms. Pattanayak, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State. On query from Court she submits, State is the implementing agency for the Central scheme, under which the action plan was made.

On perusal of annexure-1 carrying serial no.5, against which petitioner has expressed grievance, it appears that the document bears signatures of the Collector, Project Director and Block Development Officer. In the circumstances, petitioner will communicate this order and copy of the representation, along with relevant particulars on their suggestions on the alternative side, to opposite party no.2 (Collector). Said opposite party is directed to consider and deal with the representation. This direction should not be construed as contrary to the Central scheme, copy of which is annexure-2 in the writ petition. Opposite party no.2 will inform petitioner result of the consideration, within three weeks of communication.

The writ petition is disposed of.

………………………….