DUSHASAN SWAIN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is sought to be challenged in this writ application by a Ward Member and a Sarpanch of Barada Gram Panchayat, is the work order issued by the Block Development Officer (for short 'B.D.O.') in favour of opposite party No. 5 for executing Dholapasi -Ranapasi Road via Barada. It is alleged that the said work order has been issued contrary to the decision of the Palli Sabha and is otherwise unjust, illegal and liable to be set aside. The petitioners also have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or direction quashing the alleged resolution of the Palli Sabha dated 2.12.2000 and the work order issued by the B.D.O. in favour of opposite party No. 5 for execution of the aforesaid road vide Annexure -7.

(2.) IN the greater interest of the populace, the State Government sponsored 'Rural Connectivity Programme' to be implemented directly by the Zilla Parishads with the aim and objective of providing roads between the Districts to Subdivisional headquarters, Block headquarters to Tahsil headquarters and from Panchayat Samiti headquarters to Gram Panchayat headquarters. In consonance with the circular issued by the Government on 26.6.99 (Annexure -A/3), if a Zilla Parishad decides not to execute the work by contractors, an option was given to get the work executed under Rural Employment Programme by selecting an executant in a properly constituted Palli Sabha. The petitioners submit that a Palli Sabha was convened on 2.12.2000 for the purpose of selecting an executant for construction of the aforesaid road under the scheme. All the members attended the Palli Sabha, but it is alleged, in course of discussion, some hooligans including opposite party No. 5 created disturbance and interrupted the proceedings of the meeting. Taking advantage of the situation, opposite party No. 5 said to have managed to get his name recommended and accordingly a resolution was prepared and forwarded to the B.D.O. It is further alleged that in spite of protests by the petitioners and others, the B.D.O. issued the work order in favour of opposite party No. 5. While the matter stood thus, the Project Director, D.R.D.A. -cum -Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad directed the B.D.O. to make ah enquiry and submit his report regarding selection of opposite party No. 5 in the Palli Sabha. In spite of receiving the said letter, the B.D.O. did not take any action and the petitioners, having no other way out, filed this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners took exception to the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3 which is sworn to by the B.D.O. and strenuously submitted that as the B.D.O. has clandestinely entrusted the work to opposite party No. 5, the facts stated in the counter -affidavit should not be accepted. But then the counter -affidavit has been sworn to by the B.D.O. on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3, and the State Government has not disowned the authority of the B.D.O. to swear the affidavit. Thus, it cannot be presumed that the facts stated in the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3 are not correct. Opposite party No. 5, the beneficiary under the scheme, has also filed a voluminous counter strongly repudiating the allegations made in the writ application. It has been emphatically averred that the Palli Sabha in its meeting held on 2.12.2000, conscientiously selected opposite party No. 5 to execute the work. Thus there is absolutely no irregularity or illegality in issuance of the work order by the B.D.O. It is also reiterated that after receiving the work order opposite party No. 5 has executed more than thirty per cent of the work and any interference at this stage would not only prejudice him but also shall not be in the best interest of the beneficiaries. Opposite party No. 5 has also challenged the locus standi of the petitioners to file the present writ application.