NITYANANDA RAM Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, it is not necessary to issue notice to opposite parties 3 and 4 However, it is made clear that if opposite parties 3 and 4 feel aggrieved by the present order, they can seek for recalling/modifying the present order.

(2.) THE common grievance of the petitioners is that notice under Section 254 of the Orissa Municipal Act was issued calling upon the petitioners to remove the encroachment from the road -side land near Khaprakhai Bus -Stand on Jajpur -Keonjhar Road. It has been indicated in the notice that because of the encroachment lot of inconveniences are being caused to the general public and in the movement of vehicles. The petitioners were called upon to remove the encroachment within a period of seven days failing which it was indicated that the encroachment would be removed by the authority.

(3.) IN the present case, the petitioners could have treated the notice a notice to show -cause if they has any grievance to put forth before the authorities. However, the learned caunsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are now willing to file show -cause before the appropriate authority by 21st July, 2000 and if any such show -cause is filed the same may be dispos3ed of by the appropriate authority by 28th July, 2000 and till 28th July, 2000, no forcible demolition shall take place. However, if no show -cause is filed by 21st July, 2000 the authorities are free to vacate the encroachments. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the contentions. Subject to the above direction, the writ application is disposed of.