AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 202 wordsArindam Sinha, J
Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client has been seeking the benefit under the housing scheme since long. Initially his client was found to be eligible but thereafter, against his name in the subsequent list there was endorsement that he is not eligible. His client made representation and ultimately upon inquiry, on 3rd February, 2018, his client was found to be eligible once again.
He draws attention to page-36 and submits, the lists bears names of those persons extended the benefits. He reiterates, inspite of his client being found to be eligible, the benefit has not been extended. His client approached and obtained order in his earlier writ petition but to no effect.
Ms. Pattanayak, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, the proper authority to look into the matter is the Block Development Officer (opposite party no.4).
Petitioner will communicate this order along with relevant documents to opposite party no.4. Said opposite party will, within three weeks of the communication, either extend the benefit to petitioner or inform him reasons for rejection of his claim.
The writ petition is disposed of.
………………………………