MANORANJAN DAS MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.