Second Writ Petition Seeking To Enforce Order Made In An Earlier Writ Petition Is Maintainable: Orissa High Court Reiterates

The Orissa High Court has reiterated that a second writ petition, which is filed seeking enforcement of order made in an earlier writ petition, is maintainable. While clarifying the position, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha relied upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Indrapuri Studio v. State of West Bengal, 2003 (3) Calcutta High Court Notes (CHN) 148, wherein the Court had quoted the following para from the judgment in Bibekananda Mondal v. State of West Bengal, (2003) 1 WBLR (Cal) 213. “It is therefore, settled law that the second writ application is maintainable for implementation of an earlier order of the writ Court. This Court must issue proper directions for proper implementation of previous directions. Where there has been an order, the order must be complied with. An act done is wilful disobedience of a Court Order is not only contempt, but also, an illegal and invalid act. The language used in Article 226 of the Constitution of India is couched in comprehensive phraseology and the said Article recognizes a very wide power on the High Courts to remedy injustice wherever it is found.” Factual Background The petitioner was included as a beneficiary in the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY). This information obtained from the website was downloaded on 20th May, 2020. However, when he failed to avail the benefits of the scheme, he had approached the High Court. The High Court, in an order dated 22nd June 2021, had ordered the Collector, Balasore to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of two months. In that order, it had also stated, “I am constrained to say that there has always been alteration, addition and modification etc. in the selection list for Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana with an ulterior or political motive, such action should be arrested by the bureaucrats courageously. I hope and trust that, the Collector, Balasore shall do well to help the petitioner in the best way possible.” The Collector subsequently decided the representation made by the petitioner. However, he denied to extend the benefit of the scheme to him as his elder son was already enrolled as a beneficiary under the same scheme and more than one member of the same family could not have been allowed to enrol under the scheme. The Collector also found that he and his sons were living together and had a common ration card and electricity connection. Therefore, the petitioner approached the High Court again filing this writ petition, challenging the aforesaid denial. The Additional Government Advocate conveyed the Court that in the meantime the portal, in which the name of the petitioner was added as a beneficiary and was relied upon by him to avail the benefit, has been closed. Court’s Observations The Court noted that there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner’s name was included as a beneficiary and the information was duly obtained by petitioner on 20th May, 2020. Again, there was a clear direction by co-ordinate Bench to “arrest action of altering the beneficiaries list”. Notwithstanding that, the Collector made the impugned order. Thus, Justice Sinha held there is no dispute regarding adding petitioner’s name and, therefore, the portal being closed at present time has no bearing on the controversy. “The direction was made in petitioner’s earlier writ petition, where he prayed for implementing the benefit. The administration not having taken resort to law, of preferring appeal against it, said order has become final and direction made upon the authority, binding. Court is not inclined to enquire as to how initially petitioner’s name was included in the beneficiary list. Information had regarding the inclusion was never disputed and cannot now be disputed in the manner resorted to by the authority.” While directing so, the Court also clarified that a second writ petition is maintainable if it seeks to enforce order made in a previous writ petition. To substantiate the point of law, he cited the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Indrapuri Studio (supra). Therein, the Calcutta High Court had relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Devaki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, wherein the Court had entertained a second writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and passed specific order directing the authority to do what was earlier directed by the Supreme Court on the first writ application. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of setting aside the impugned order. Case Title: Gourahari Lenka v. State of Odisha & Ors. Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 34606 of 2021 Judgment Dated: 6th January 2023 Coram: Arindam Sinha, J. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Subhransu Bhusan Mohanty, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. Suman Pattanayak, Additional Government Advocate Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 9Click Here To Read/Download...

Second Writ Petition Seeking To Enforce Order Made In An Earlier Writ Petition Is Maintainable: Orissa High Court Reiterates

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Second Writ Petition Seeking To Enforce Order Made In An Earlier Writ Petition Is Maintainable: Orissa High Court Reiterates

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers