Sanjulata Sahu And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, his clients were found eligible to receive benefit under the housing scheme. However, thereafter the benefit was not given.

He submits, counter has been filed, wherefrom it appears that there was reliance on circular dated 15th January, 2023 for allegedly filtering out names of petitioners under step-1 of ‘exclusion process’. There was purported enquiry by teams comprising of employees in the Panchayat Samiti office, resulting in deletion of his clients’ names on allegation that they posses pucca house.

He refers to identification and selection of beneficiaries procedure given in the scheme. Clause-4.4 deals with verification of priority lists by Gram Sabha. As such, for purpose of implementing the scheme, there cannot be enquiry by teams comprised of employees in Panchayat Samiti office, to report as resulting in deletion of his clients’ names from list of the beneficiaries.

Mr. Rout, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, petitioners have remedy by way of appeal. Mr. Rath replies that the list, excluding his clients’ names, have been approved by, inter alia, the Appellate Committee so no such remedy is available.

Mr. Rout prays for adjournment. It is granted on it being pointed out that pleadings are complete and the writ petition is to be heard and disposed of on adjourned date or thereafter.

List on 24th March, 2023.

………………………………