IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2788 of 2022 Bijay Kumar Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. H. S. Rao, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha, represented through the Collector, Kendrapara 2. The District Panchayat Officer, Kendrapara 3. Block Development Officer, Kendrapara Block 4. Indupur Grama Panchayat, represented Through Panchayat Executive Officer …. Opposite Parties Mr. P. K. Ray, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 10.02.2026 04. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that since the time of his father he was having a shop room under the Gram Panchayat and to fortify his stand he relies on the rent receipt at Annexure-1. 3. It is stated that his shop room and others were gutted in a fire on 01.01.2019 and thereafter, a decision was taken by the office of the Sarpanch, Indupur gram panchayat to allot him a shop room after renovation because of the fire accident. 4. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that though the new shop rooms have been constructed, instead of allotting the same to him, his claim is being ignored and with such averments the writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- “The petitioner therefore, prays that this Hon'ble court may be graciously pleased to admit the writ application and after hearing the counsel of the petitioner direct the Opp.Party No.3 to take appropriate steps considering the Panchayat resolution, annexure- 4 and the application of the petitioner vide annexure-6 to allot a shop room in favour of the petitioner on monthly rent basis, which is renovated/reconstructed by Panchayat for shop, used previously. Xxx xxx xxx” 5. Learned counsel for the State per contra submits that in the meanwhile the shop rooms in question have already been allotted and he relies on the allotment order, which is on record at Annexure- C/3, and also the subsequent agreement entered into between the parties. Referring to the said agreement, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the agreements have been forged since there is discrepancies regarding the dates. 6. Be that as it may, since admittedly as per Annexure-C/3, the shop rooms in question have been allotted vide order dated 22.12.2021 and the allottees have not been impleaded, the writ petition is not maintainable in their absence, since their civil rights are going to be affected. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Liberty is given to the Petitioner to pursue his grievance, since it is stated that fresh shop rooms have been constructed, which are due for allotment. In such event if the Petitioner seeks for allotment on priority basis, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by non-entertainment of the present writ petition. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Jina