MANORANJAN DAS MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA
LAWS(ORI)-2021-1-13
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on January 13,2021

Manoranjan Das Mohapatra Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ODISHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B R SARANGI,J. - (1.) The petitioner, who is an advocate by occupation, has filed this writ petition in person seeking to declare the impugned proceeding vide memo no.4046 dated 04.05.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequentially issue direction to opposite party no.3 to allot a plot in favour of him either in the same project or in any other similar housing project under the control and management of the opposite party-Odisha Co-operative Housing Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that opposite party no.3-Managing Director of opposite party no.2- Odisha Co-operative Housing Corporation Ltd. issued an advertisement in daily newspaper The Samaja on 01.01.2013 inviting applications for sale of 18 number of vacant plots of different sizes (1000-4000 sq.ft.) at the rate of Rs.160/- per sq.ft. at Kalinga Vihar Housing Project, Puri, Odisha. The advertisement specified that the applicants need to apply in plain papers indicating their choice of plot with booking amount of Rs.50,000/- and the mode of allotment would be on First come first serve basis and the deposit would be received in shape of Demand Draft/Bankers cheque issued in favour of Odisha Co-operative Housing Corporation Ltd. payable at Bhubaneswar. The Managing Director, Odisha Co-operative Housing Corporation Ltd. reserved the right to accept or reject any application submitted without assigning any reasons whatsoever. 2.1. Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application along with demand draft of Rs.50,000/- bearing demand draft no.132819 dated 01.01.2013 drawn on Syndicate Bank in favour of opposite party no.3, which was duly received by him. After receipt of his application along with requisite fees, the petitioner did not receive any communication from opposite party no.3 with regard to his selection or rejection of allotment of plot. The petitioner waited from 2013 to 2016 with a hope that the plot would be allotted in his faovur and intimation would be given to him. Opposite party no.3 neither allotted the plot nor intimated the petitioner regarding allotment of the plot. Therefore, the petitioner submitted representation on 02.01.2014 to opposite party no.3 with regard to consideration of his application dated 01.01.2013, but no reply was forthcoming from opposite party no.3. Consequentially, against inaction of opposite party no.3, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.2546 of 2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.02.2016 with a direction to opposite party no.3 to consider the application and dispose of the representation dated 02.01.2014 of the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Though the said order was communicated, opposite party no.3 slept over the matter and did not give any intimation to the petitioner. Due to non-compliance of the order dated 22.02.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.2546 of 2016, the petitioner filed CONTC No.249 of 2017 in which upon receipt of notice, opposite party no.3 issued a letter and a cheque of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the petitioner dated 16.12.2019 stating that the earnest money received was returned herewith as the petitioner was not provided with the land applied for. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) Mr. M.D. Mohapatra, the petitioner appearing in person contended that he had deposited the earnest money of Rs.50,000/- in shape of demand draft pursuant to the advertisement issued on 01.01.2013, but opposite party no.3, having kept quiet for a period of six years, returned the aforesaid earnest money without any interest and without allotting any plot in his favour. He further contended that because of filing of W.P.(C) No. 2546 of 2016 and subsequently CONTC No. 249 of 2017, opposite party no.3 returned his earnest money of Rs.50,000/- in order to get rid of the charge of contempt. Thereby, opposite party no.3 has acted arbitrarily and unreasonably, for which the petitioner seeks interference of this Court at this stage.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.