Rupa Manjari Mahapatra vs Principal Secretary, MSME, Bhubaneswar & Ors

Biswanath Rath, J

This writ petition involves the following prayer:

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner respectfully prays that the Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition, issue notice to the opp. parties specifically to O.P.No.3 to show cause as to why the order dt. 10.03.2023 under annexure-8 shall not be quashed and if the opp. parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the Hon’ble Court upon hearing the parties may further be pleased to allow this Writ Petition by quashing the said order under annexure-11 in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ directing the O.P.s to reconsider the proposal of the petitioner unit within a stipulated time in consonance with the letter under annexure-8 and may be further pleased to pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as may be deemed expedient in the interest of justice and for this act of kindness as the petitioner is duty bound shall ever pray.”

Principal challenge involving the writ petition appears to be alleged illegal consideration of the case of the petitioner Agenda No.3 (II). Taking this Court to the request of the authority for answering to the queries raised at Annexure-10, Mrs.Jena, learned counsel taking again this Court to Annexure-3 contended that there has been submission of the response to the queries sought for. It is again taking this Court to the recommendation through Annexure-7, Mrs.Jena, learned counsel also attempted to convince the Court that there has been already a recommendation by the competent authority as marked in right-hand column of Sl. No.1 at page-35 of the brief. It is next taking this Court to the discussions on the consideration of the case of the petitioner appearing at page-38 of the brief, petitioner has a serious allegation that when the first part discussion indicates petitioner did not have the response to the queries, in the subsequent paragraph there is abrupt reaching with the conclusion merely stating that even though there is response of the petitioner to the queries at the Online Go-Swift portal but it is simply to mislead the authority. It is in the above background, Mrs.Jena, learned counsel claims there has been mechanical disposal of the issue involved therein.

Mr.Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel in his opposition to the allegation of the petitioner again on reading of the observation at page-38 of the brief, for the reason assigned therein attempted to satisfy the rejection of the claim of the petitioner.

This Court in consideration of the rival contentions of the parties finds undisputedly petitioner has responded to the queries vide Annexure-3. This apart, there also appears there is a recommendation in favour of the petitioner vide page-35,1st paragraph right hand column which runs as follows:

“It is understood that the applicant has proposed to set up a modern recycling plant which is one of the ten common infrastructure facilities needed in a part under the Plastic Park Scheme of Government of India. Further, the applicant proposes to develop a warehouse. Since the Park has its own warehouse as a common facility, it is considered that the applicant may be allowed to provide the services to other vendors as proposed, subject to clearance from PPPL after utilization of at least 75% occupancy of the Park’s own warehouse facility.”

It is at this stage, taking into account the discussion of the final observation in the impugned order at Annexure-8, this Court finds there is not only no dealing with the response of the petitioner to the queries but there is also no taking into account the recommendation of the competent authority vide Annexure- 7, as taken note hereinabove.

Considering the impugned order involves a mechanical rejection, this Court interfering in the decision against the petitioner   involving   Agenda  No.3  (II) impugned  herein, sets aside the same and remits the matter back again to the Collector & DM-cum-Chairperson, DSWCA, Jagatsinghpur for reconsideration of the matter of course taking into account the recommendation at Annexure-7 as well as the objection of the petitioner vide Annexure-3 by completing the entire reconsideration process within a month from the date of communication of this order by the petitioner. Decision process shall also include the instruction to all Collectors by the Principal Secretary vide Annexure-11.

The writ petition thus stands disposed of.

……………………….