Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27119 (ORI)

Prakash Chandra Das v. State of Odisha

2026-02-10

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

body2026
ORDER : 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioner, Prakash Chandra Das, an Ex-Indian Navy personnel, has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition seeking allotment of a plot pursuant to an advertisement issued by the General Administration Department. In response thereto, he submitted his application on 13.04.1987 within the stipulated time. A lottery was subsequently conducted on 23.02.1989, and the results were published in the odiya daily newspaper "The Samaj" on 23.09.1989, wherein the Petitioner’s name figured as a successful allottee. However, despite such declaration and notwithstanding repeated representations submitted by him to the competent authorities, no formal allotment order was ever issued in his favour, compelling him to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking appropriate relief. 3. Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner, an Ex-Indian Navy personnel, had applied for allotment of a residential plot at Bhubaneswar pursuant to the advertisement issued by the General Administration Department, Bhubaneswar, in accordance with the eligibility criteria prescribed therein. It is contended that the Petitioner fulfilled all requisite conditions and had submitted his application within time, with a legitimate expectation of consideration under the scheme formulated by the Government. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the State of Orissa conducted a lottery amongst the eligible applicants pursuant to the said advertisement, in which the Petitioner was declared successful. The result of the lottery was published in the Odia daily "The Samaj" dated 23.03.1989, wherein the Petitioner’s name appeared in the list of allottees and he was shown to have been allotted a residential plot. 5. It is further submitted that notwithstanding such declaration in the published result, no formal allotment letter was ever communicated to the Petitioner by the competent authority. Left with no alternative, the Petitioner addressed several representations to the Joint Secretary (Administration), Ex-Officio Director of Estate, General Administration Department, requesting issuance of the formal allotment order in his favour in terms of the lottery result. It is contended that the Petitioner, having served the Indian Navy for fifteen years and retired in 1981, is homeless and requested expeditious allotment of the plot. However, the authorities failed to respond to his representations. 6. It is contended that the Petitioner, having served the Indian Navy for fifteen years and retired in 1981, is homeless and requested expeditious allotment of the plot. However, the authorities failed to respond to his representations. 6. It is further contended that the Petitioner again wrote a letter dated 17.11.1989 requesting clarification regarding the status of the allotment pursuant to the lottery result published in daily Newspaper ‘The Samaj’. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the G.A. Department sought verification of the Petitioner’s service particulars from the Rajya Sainik Board through Home Department. By letter No.135558 dated 03.08.1992, the Home Department confirmed the Petitioner’s service credentials and present address. Despite such verification, no allotment order was issued nor was he called upon to deposit the premium. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner persistently pursued the matter by submitting representations before the Estate Officer, G.A. Department, as well as the Special Secretary to Government; however, no decision was communicated to him. In the absence of any response and being unable to secure relief, he eventually returned to his native village, Karadabadi. 9. It is further contended that the Petitioner subsequently came to learn that his original application had been treated as incomplete on the ground that it did not bear his signature and was kept pending on that basis, without any notice or intimation to him. Upon becoming aware of the said objection, the Petitioner submitted a clarification letter dated 05.04.2000 explaining that the omission to sign the application was purely inadvertent and unintentional. He further reiterated therein that his credentials as Ex-Indian Navy personnel had already been duly verified and certified by the Rajya Sainik Board, and thus the alleged defect was merely technical in nature and ought not to have resulted in denial of allotment. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the letter dated 05.04.2000 was received by the opposite party No.2, on 06.04.2000, but the authorities did not take any decision in the matter. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that only after filing of the present Writ Petition did the G.A. Department take the plea that the Petitioner had not appended his signature on the application form submitted for allotment of the said plot. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that only after filing of the present Writ Petition did the G.A. Department take the plea that the Petitioner had not appended his signature on the application form submitted for allotment of the said plot. It is contended that such objection is an afterthought, inasmuch as no such deficiency was ever communicated to the Petitioner at any point of time prior thereto, despite the publication of the lottery result declaring him successful and despite his repeated representations seeking issuance of the formal allotment order. 11. Learned counsel for the State contends that absence of signature is a major defect rendering the application invalid under the applicable allotment conditions. Learned counsel for the State further submits that earlier the petitioner had filed a grievance Petition dated 15.07.2024 before the Hon’ble Chief Minister vide Jana Sunani Petition No.CMO2024634198, seeking execution of the lease deed in respect of the said plot. The same was rejected vide Deptt. Letter No. 27457, dated 18.09.2024. 12. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the Petitioner had earlier approached the Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat seeking allotment of the said plot on the basis of the lottery publication dated 23.03.1991 in the daily "The Samaj". It is submitted that the said proceeding was taken up for conciliation; however, no settlement could be arrived at between the parties. Consequently, by order dated 16.01.2025, the Lok Adalat closed the proceeding as unsuccessful, while granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, whereafter the present Writ Petition has been instituted. 13. Learned counsel for the State further contends that, as on date, no scheme is in operation under which the claim of the Petitioner can be considered. It is further submitted that the application submitted by the Petitioner was admittedly unsigned, which, according to the State, constitutes a fundamental and incurable defect in terms of the conditions stipulated in the relevant allotment brochure. Such non-compliance, it is urged, amounts to violation of the mandatory terms governing the scheme and renders the Petitioner ineligible for consideration. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Perused the available materials on record. 14. It is borne out from the record that the Petitioner’s name was published as a successful allottee in the Odia daily "The Samaj" dated 23.03.1989. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Perused the available materials on record. 14. It is borne out from the record that the Petitioner’s name was published as a successful allottee in the Odia daily "The Samaj" dated 23.03.1989. Such publication was not a tentative or provisional communication but a formal declaration pursuant to the lottery conducted by the State. Once the Petitioner was declared successful and his name was publicly notified, a vested right may not have crystallized in the strict proprietary sense; nevertheless, a legitimate expectation undeniably arose in his favour that the consequential formal allotment would follow in due course, subject to compliance with routine formalities. 15. The doctrine of legitimate expectation, as consistently recognized by constitutional courts, operates as a facet of Article 14 of the Constitution, ensuring that State action remains fair, non-arbitrary, and transparent. When the State, by its representation or conduct, induces an expectation in a citizen, it cannot subsequently defeat such expectation on hyper-technical grounds, particularly after permitting the citizen to believe that he has been selected through a duly conducted process. 16. If indeed the Petitioner’s application was found to be unsigned, such omission, assuming it to be correct, was at best a curable procedural defect. The principles of natural justice demanded that the authorities could have intimated the Petitioner regarding such deficiency and afford him an opportunity to rectify the same. The failure to communicate the alleged defect, coupled with the prolonged silence of the authorities despite repeated representations, amounts to administrative arbitrariness. It is trite law that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality and any State action that is capricious, opaque, or unreasonable falls foul of Article 14. 17. The State cannot, after allowing decades to elapse and after publicly declaring the Petitioner successful, seek to rely upon an internal procedural lapse which was never communicated to the applicant in order to deny him the benefit of allotment. Administrative fairness requires prompt communication of defects and an opportunity to cure them. Silence in the face of repeated representations, followed by belated reliance on a technical irregularity, undermines the rule of law and erodes public confidence in governance. 18. Administrative fairness requires prompt communication of defects and an opportunity to cure them. Silence in the face of repeated representations, followed by belated reliance on a technical irregularity, undermines the rule of law and erodes public confidence in governance. 18. Moreover, the subsequent issuance of letter dated 25.10.2025 by the Director of Estates & Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to Government, G.A. Department, acknowledging and effecting allotment of Plot No. 149 in favour of the Petitioner, itself reflects that the State has ultimately recognized the legitimacy of his claim. The fixation of premium and imposition of conditions for deposit within a stipulated period further demonstrate that the claim was not inherently untenable but was capable of being regularized in accordance with policy. 19. In these circumstances, the plea of a decades-old technical defect, never intimated and never treated as disqualifying at the relevant time, cannot be permitted to defeat the substantive rights flowing from a duly declared lottery result. The constitutional mandate of fairness, reasonableness, and non- arbitrariness must prevail over procedural rigidity, particularly where the citizen is retired defense personnel who had acted bona fide and pursued his claim diligently. 20. On this aspect, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that other similarly situated applicants, who were declared successful pursuant to the very same lottery process, were allotted plots upon payment of a premium of only Rs. 17,218/- at the relevant point of time. It is contended that the Petitioner, having been selected in the same lottery and standing on identical footing, cannot now be subjected to an exorbitant premium determined on the basis of present market rates after decades of administrative inaction. 21. Learned counsel argues that such differential treatment offends the guarantee of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. Once the Petitioner’s name was published along with other successful candidates, he formed part of a homogeneous class. The State cannot, by reason of its own delay or omission, impose a substantially higher financial burden upon him while others similarly placed were granted allotment at the original rate. Doing so would amount to penalizing the Petitioner for no fault of his own and would render the action arbitrary, discriminatory, and unsustainable in law. It is not disputed that the Petitioner is an Ex-Indian Navy personnel, having rendered fifteen years of disciplined service to the nation before his retirement in the year 1981. Doing so would amount to penalizing the Petitioner for no fault of his own and would render the action arbitrary, discriminatory, and unsustainable in law. It is not disputed that the Petitioner is an Ex-Indian Navy personnel, having rendered fifteen years of disciplined service to the nation before his retirement in the year 1981. His service credentials have already been verified by the competent authority through the Rajya Sainik Board. Being a former member of the Armed Forces, he is entitled to fair, equitable and non-arbitrary treatment at the hands of the State, particularly in matters relating to rehabilitation and allotment of residential accommodation. 22. At this juncture, learned counsel for the State, on instructions, fairly submits that in the event the Petitioner submits a fresh representation before the Director of Estates & Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to Government, G.A. Department, ventilating his grievance with regard to fixation of premium and seeking consideration at the rate prevailing at the relevant time, the same shall be examined and considered sympathetically, strictly in accordance with law and applicable policy. It is submitted that an appropriate decision shall be taken by the competent authority upon due consideration of the factual and legal aspects of the matter. Accordingly, this Court directs that if the Petitioner approaches the Director of Estates & Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to Government, G.A. Department, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, along with a representation seeking fixation of premium at the rate applicable to similarly situated allottees and deposits such amount as was originally fixed for the co-applicants, the authority shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law and in parity with similarly situated persons. The decision shall be taken by a reasoned and speaking order. 23. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 24. In view of the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 25. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 26. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.