Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 531 (ORI)

Nrutang Gram Panchayat v. State of Orissa

2015-09-09

S.N.PRASAD

body2015
JUDGMENT : S.N. PRASAD, J. 1. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel. 2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged Annexure-2 declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary being contrary to the provision of Section-5 of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 and contrary to the provision of Article 243G of the Constitution of India. 3. The brief facts of the case as has been pleaded by the writ petitioner that he being the Sarpanch of Nrutang Gram Panchayat is before this Court for challenging Annexure-2 for the reason that the State Government has announced a Scheme to provide low cost houses to the poor families to construct over 5 lakh houses every year, besides converting all "Kacha house" into "Pucca" one in five year for which the Government has decided to give financial help. 3.1. The Government has initially launched a Scheme known as "Mo Kudia" on 20.10.2014 wherein the Gram Panchayat has been given adequate representation for taking decision for selecting beneficiaries and extending the benefit. 3.2. The Government has come out with another notification on 9.6.2015 to convert all the "Kacha" houses into "Pucca" house by the year 2019 as such a Scheme known as "Biju Pucca Ghar Yojana" (in short "BPGY") has been launched, wherein procedure for selecting the beneficiaries have been made out but the Gram Panchayats have completely been ignored by no participation in the decision making process regarding selection of the beneficiaries and thereby the resolution of the Government is completely in contradiction to the constitutional provision as contained in Article 243G and against Section 5 of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964. 3.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted by referring to the resolution of the State dated 20.10.2014 wherein the selection procedure has been prescribed under Clause-7 which provides that the survey list will be shared by the Block to all the Gram Panchayats. All the Gram Panchayats will be placed the same before the "Palli Sabha" or "Gram Sabha" for deliberation and listing out of beneficiaries. All the proposals/ recommendations received from the Hon'ble M.Ps/M.L.As will be considered by the "Palli Sabha"/"Gram Sabha" which shall be forwarded to the Gram Panchayats for the purpose of taking decision. All the Gram Panchayats will be placed the same before the "Palli Sabha" or "Gram Sabha" for deliberation and listing out of beneficiaries. All the proposals/ recommendations received from the Hon'ble M.Ps/M.L.As will be considered by the "Palli Sabha"/"Gram Sabha" which shall be forwarded to the Gram Panchayats for the purpose of taking decision. The final list originate from "Palli Sabha"/"Gram Sabha" will be considered at Gram Panchayat level and will be submitted to the concerned Block and thereafter the concerned B.D.O. shall conduct a pre-eligibility enquiry and thereafter approve the list. 3.4. Hence by drawing attention of this Court towards Clause-7 it has been contended that the circular dated 20.10.2014 was in consonance with the constitutional provision as contained in 243 (g) of the Constitution of India and also Section 5 of the Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 which provides that the local bodies will be given power for executing the development work and in the matter of policy decision in that regard. 3.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court has stated that the resolution dated 9.6.2015, the Government has taken altogether contrary decision giving go by to the constitutional provision as in 243G of the Constitution of India and Section-5 of the Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 because the Gram Panchayat has been deprived from decision making power and everything has been assigned to be done by the Block Development Officer and even in case of determination of the cadre of beneficiaries under 'BPGY' special category, the "Gram Sabha" has been ignored, the power has been given to the District Level Committee consisting of five officials to be headed by the District Collector as Chairman and as such this resolution is in the teeth of the Article 243 (g) of the Constitution of India and Section 5 of the Gram Panchayats Act, 1964. 3.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of Gujarat Pradesh Panchayat Parishad v. State of Gujarat reported in (2007) 7 SCC 718 . 4. 3.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of Gujarat Pradesh Panchayat Parishad v. State of Gujarat reported in (2007) 7 SCC 718 . 4. While on the other hand learned counsel for the State has argued the case and vehemently opposed the contention raised by the petitioner by stating that there is no violation of the constitutional provision as contained in 243G of the Constitution of India and Section 5 of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 because the power of the Gram Panchayat has not been taken away rather what the Government has done is only the proper execution of the Scheme which is to be based upon SECC, 2011 data where all the record pertaining to the category of beneficiaries is there and the B.D.O. has been assigned to extend the benefit from amongst the SECC, 2011 survey list having "Kacha" houses. 4.1. It has further been contended that even in BPGY (Special) category which has been meant for such rural households affected by natural/man-made calamities like fire, flood, cyclone, earthquake, elephant menace, communal violence, major law and order problem, etc. and extremely poor, vulnerable and deserving households who need "Pucca" house on compassionate ground but could not be selected under BPGY (normal), for determining the same. The application has to come through Gram Panchayat. 4.2. He has argued that the Committee has been constituted for selection of beneficiaries for BPGY (Special) but the decision for declaring a beneficiary to come under BPGY (Special) category the process is that the concerned beneficiary will have to make application before the B.D.O. through the Gram Panchayat and it is only on the basis of the scrutiny to be made by the Gram Panchayat the B.D.O. is supposed to take decision for declaring a candidate to come under BPGY (Special), this has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4.3. It has been contended that no right of the Gram Panchayats have been taken away since everything has to be done on the basis of the data available in SECC 2011 from that data only, the beneficiaries is to be given the benefit by way of lottery so that no one can be favoured. 4.4. 4.3. It has been contended that no right of the Gram Panchayats have been taken away since everything has to be done on the basis of the data available in SECC 2011 from that data only, the beneficiaries is to be given the benefit by way of lottery so that no one can be favoured. 4.4. It has been contended that in earlier resolution of the Government (Annexure-1) there was no method to go for lottery rather beneficiaries were to be selected on the basis of the decision of the Gram Panchayat and after conducting an enquiry the name of the selected beneficiaries were to be published in the Notice Board of the Gram Panchayat and by that way it has been found by the Government that there was so many manipulation in selecting the candidates, hence decision has been taken to go for lottery so that the sole purpose of the Scheme can be reached to the deserving candidates, no one can be favoured by anybody since the provision has been made for selection of beneficiaries through lottery at the Gram Panchayat headquarters, if the lottery could not have been conducted under the Gram Panchayat level it will be conducted at Block headquarters in presence of B.D.O., Assistant Engineer and ABDO/ any Extension Officer. Further for conducting lottery at G.P. Headquarters, BDO will depute three member team of officers who will be responsible for conducting it in a fair and transparent manner, the result of the lottery would be declared on the same day by the B.D.O., the final list will be displayed at Block and Gram Panchayat Offices, thereafter the B.D.O. will issue work order from the selected candidates. 4.5. Referring to the constitutional provision as contained in Article 243G of the Constitution of India it has been contended that the said constitutional provision is enabling provision, the implementation of Scheme of economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to the self-government so it is not mandatory rather it depends upon the Government for proper execution of the Scheme and as such it is incorrect to say that there is violation of the constitutional provision. 4.6. 4.6. Further it has been contended that there is no violation of Section 5 of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 because the provision says empowering "Gram Sabha" to identify or select persons as beneficiaries under the poverty alleviation programmes or other similar programmes. Since in the resolution empowered power upon the B.D.O. has not been conferred to identify the beneficiaries rather the B.D.O. has been empowered to implement the Scheme to such beneficiaries who are already in the SECC 2011 data and from that list only the final list of beneficiaries has to be prepared hence identification is purely made on the basis of data available on record. 4.7. He has further argued that it is the policy decision, the Government is competent enough to formulate policy decision for the proper implementation of the Scheme, it cannot be judicially reviewed by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless and until arbitrariness or any miscarriage of justice is shown but no such ground has been taken by the petitioner. 4.8. Further the locus standie of the petitioner has also been challenged because the writ petition has been filed in the representative capacity of Gram Panchayat since the petitioner is a Sarpanch and in the entire pleading no resolution has been annexed showing the consensus of the villagers/beneficiaries that they have resolved to challenge the resolution. 4.9. Moreover, the resolution has been issued for entire State of Odisha hence challenging the resolution by a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat cannot be said to be proper application hence the petitioner has got no locus standie to challenge the resolution. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. Main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is two folds i.e. (i) There is violation of the constitutional provision as contained in 243G of the Constitution of India. (ii) There is violation of provision of Section 5 of the Gram Panchayats Act, 1964. So far as point No. (i) is concerned, in order to appreciate issue it is relevant to go through the provision the Article 243G of the Constitution of India which provides power and authority regarding responsibility of the Panchayats/Blocks which is as follows:- "243G. (ii) There is violation of provision of Section 5 of the Gram Panchayats Act, 1964. So far as point No. (i) is concerned, in order to appreciate issue it is relevant to go through the provision the Article 243G of the Constitution of India which provides power and authority regarding responsibility of the Panchayats/Blocks which is as follows:- "243G. Powers, authority and responsibilities of Panchayats.- Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, endow the Panchayts with such powers and authority and may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government and such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Panchayats at the appropriate level, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to:- (a) The preparation of plans for economic development and social justice; (b) The implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule." 6. From perusal of the constitutional provisions as quoted herein above, it is evident that the State legislature has been empowered to endow the Panchayats with such powers and authority and if necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government with respect to preparation of plans for economic development and social justice. Secondly, the implementation of the Scheme for economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matter listed in the Eleventh Schedule. Thus, this provision is very clear by which Panchayats have been empowered to prepare plan or implement the various schemes but if entrusted by the State Government because the provision said that the preparation and implementation may be entrusted to them by the Government this suggests that this is enabling provision and discretion lies with the State to hand over any scheme for preparation of plans or implementation of a Scheme hence it is not mandatory. In the case in hand, the Government although has launched a resolution in the month of October, 2014 entrusting the Gram Panchayat to participate in the implementation of the Scheme but subsequently resolution dated 9.6.2015, the Government has changed the method for implementation of the Scheme. In the case in hand, the Government although has launched a resolution in the month of October, 2014 entrusting the Gram Panchayat to participate in the implementation of the Scheme but subsequently resolution dated 9.6.2015, the Government has changed the method for implementation of the Scheme. From perusal of the subsequent Scheme dated 9.6.2015 it is evident that as per the Clause-4.1 which speaks regarding BPGY (normal), for this category the household from the SECC 2011 survey list having 'Kacha' house are covered under this Scheme, this suggests that there is already details available in the official record i.e., SECC 2011 survey list having 'Kacha' house and from the said list the B.D.O. has been directed to prepare Gram Panchayat-wise list and village-wise list. For better appreciation relevant provision of Clause-4, 5 and 7 is being quoted herein below:- "4. Components of the Scheme: The BPGY has two components – (1) BPGY (Normal) & BPGY (Special): 4.1. BPGY (Normal: The households from the SECC 2011 survey list having Kutcha house are covered under this scheme. 4.1. BPGY (Special): Rural households affected by natural/man-made calamities like fire, flood, cyclone, earth quake, elephant menace, communal violence, major law and order problem etc. and extremely poor, vulnerable and deserving households who need pucca house on compassionate ground but could not be selected under BPGY (normal) are covered under BPGY (Special). 5. Target Group and eligibility: 5.1. BPGY Normal: 5.1.1. For being eligible, the household must have been registered as such in SECC 2011 list and must be ordinarily residing in the village. 5.1.2. The household must not have pucca house as per SECC 2011 and not constructed Pucca house in the meantime. 5.1.3. The household must not have availed pucca house under any scheme of the Government. 5.2. BPGY Special: 5.2.1. The household whose house has been fully damaged by natural/manmade calamities like fire, flood, cyclone, earth quake, elephant menace, communal violence, LWE violence, major law and order problem etc. 5.2.2. Victims of river/sea inundation who need re-location/shifting. 5.2.3. Household whose house is fully collapsed/washed away/fully damaged due to circumstances mentioned above will be eligible to be covered under "Biju Pucca Ghar Yojana (BPGY) Special" house notwithstanding previous allotment of house under Biju Pucca Ghar Yojana (BPGY)/IAY/any other Government scheme. 5.2.4. Extremely poor, vulnerable and deserving households who need pucca house on compassionate ground but could not be selected under BPGY (normal). 7. 5.2.4. Extremely poor, vulnerable and deserving households who need pucca house on compassionate ground but could not be selected under BPGY (normal). 7. Selection Procedure: BPGY (Normal): Selection of beneficiaries under Biju Pucca Ghar Yojana will be made in a fair and transparent manner. The following procedures will be followed for selection of beneficiaries under BPGY (Normal): 7.1. BDOs will prepare GP wise and village wise list of households having Kutcha houses as per updated SECC 2011 data. 7.2. Thereafter BDO, through his field functionaries will conduct field enquiry to find whether the beneficiaries in the list prepared by him are eligible or not as per the para "4" of the beneficiaries in the list prepared by him are eligible or not as per the para "4" of the guidelines. 7.3. After completion of enquiry, BDO will prepare the final list of kutcha households GP wise, village wise and social category wise. 7.4. Selection of beneficiaries will be done form this list through lottery conducted in a fair and transparent manner. Additional detailed procedure for conduct of lottery may be communicated by Panchayati Raj Department separately. The lottery will be conducted at GP Headquarters. If for some reason, the lottery cannot be conducted at the GP Headquarters, then it can be conducted at Block Headquarters by the BDO in present of BDO, Assistant Engineer and ABDO/any Extension Officer. For conducting lottery at GP Headquarters, BDO will depute a three member team of officers who will responsible for conducting it in a fair and transparent manner. The result of the lottery will be declared on the same day by the BDO and the final list will displayed at block and GP offices. Thereafter BDO will issue work order from the selected list. BPGY (Special): The selection of beneficiaries for BPGY (Special) will be done by a District level Committee (DLC) consisting of the following members. (a) District Collector Chairman (b) Hon'ble MPs of District Member (c) Hon'ble MLA's of the District Member (d) President Zilla Parishad Member (e) PD, DRDA-cum-EO, ZP Member Convener 7.5. The District level Committee will approve the list after which it will be communicated to the BDOs by the District Collector. 7.6. In case District level Committee falls to approve the list within timeline fixed, the District Collector will approve the same and communicate to the BDOs. 7.7. The District level Committee will approve the list after which it will be communicated to the BDOs by the District Collector. 7.6. In case District level Committee falls to approve the list within timeline fixed, the District Collector will approve the same and communicate to the BDOs. 7.7. The final list will be published at the concerned Gram Panchayat/Block headquarters and will also be made available at DRDA Website for information of public. 7.8. BDOs will issue work orders from the approved list. BPGY (Normal) is to be extended to such person whose names are already in the SECC 2011 survey list which itself suggests that the B.D.O. is only to extend the benefit to the beneficiaries who are already in SECC 2011 survey list and at the time of preparation of survey list the process is that the opinion of "Gram Sabha" is to be taken. Hence it cannot be said that the "Gram Sabha" has been ignored rather their participation is always as because the B.D.O. has only been empowered to prepare the list on the basis of SECC 2011 survey list. So far as the BPGY (Special) category is concerned, the same relates to the household affected on account of natural calamities/manmade calamities or other reasons as would be evident from Clause-4.2 and for determining the beneficiaries under this category the provision has been made at Clause-5.2.3 that the household whose house is fully collapsed/washed away or fully damaged due to circumstances mentioned at Clause 4.2 such household will be covered under BPGY (Special) Scheme. Arguments has been advanced that for determining a household to come under the category of displaced on account of natural calamities and for other reasons as referred in Clause 4.2 the process is that the owner of household is supposed to make an application before the B.D.O. through Gram panchayat and on determining the issue, the B.D.O. concerned is supposed to take opinion of Gram Panchayat. A household whether comes under this category or not the opinion of "Gram Sabha" is required to be taken at the time of declaration as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State which has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and hence under this category it cannot be said that the Gram Panchayat has been overlooked. Selection of beneficiaries entrusted to a Committee consisting of five members headed by the District Collector being the Chairman which shall be approved by the District level Committee, communicated by the concerned Collector to the B.D.O. concerned thereafter final list will be published at the Gram Panchayat/ Block Headquarters and will also be made available at DRDA website for information of public and then the B.D.O. will issue work orders from the approved list. Thus even in taking decision regarding BPGY (Special) the Gram Panchayat is in active participation in determination of their category to be included under BPGY (Special). Thus by the resolution what has been done is only to execute the scheme by the B.D.O. In the resolution which is impugned as would be evident from Clause-7.4 the selection of beneficiaries have been directed through lottery conducted in a fair and transparent manner in presence of three member team of Officers in Gram Panchayat or if not conducted at Gram Panchayat it will be at Block headquarters hence by going to lottery process the action of the Government cannot be doubted because of the reason that in the lottery which would be done in the Gram Panchayat headquarters or Block headquarters in presence of the three members team of the officers which itself suggests that the lottery would be decided to be done in public and as such the same cannot be said to be not transparent and unfair. If there would not be lottery then anyone can allege that the priority has been given to a particular person on the basis of influence of any influential person which can always happen and is being happening. Thus it is evident that even though the provision in Article 243G of the Constitution of India is enabling but from the facts narrated above it cannot be said that there is no involvement of Gram Panchayats. Thus it is evident that even though the provision in Article 243G of the Constitution of India is enabling but from the facts narrated above it cannot be said that there is no involvement of Gram Panchayats. So far applicability of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Pradesh Panchayat Parishad v. State of Gujarat reported in (2007) 7 SCC 718 as has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case on account of the fact that the subject matter of the said case was regarding interference by the District Development Officer in the matter of transfer/posting of employees of local bodies and in that context it has been held that it is not necessary for the President of District Panchayat to consult the District Development Officers in the matter like transfer/posting etc. while here is the case in which authorities have only been entrusted in the execution of Scheme from the lists which has been finalised by the active participation of Gram Panchayats, as discussed above, hence not applicable. Thus for the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that there is no violation of the Article 243G of the Constitution of India. 7. So far violation of Section 5 of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 is concerned, same is also not acceptable because in order to appreciate relevant portion needs to be quoted:- "5. Grama Sabha and its functions – (1) There shall be at least two meetings one in February and the other in June every year of the members of the Grama Sasan and such other meetings as may be prescribed. (2) (a) The quorum for the meetings of the Grama Sasan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Grama Sabha') shall be one-tenth of the members of the Grama Sasan. (b) In the event of there being no quorum at any Grama Sabha it shall stand adjourned to a future day of which notice shall be given in the prescribed manner and no quorum shall be necessary for any such adjourned meeting. (b) In the event of there being no quorum at any Grama Sabha it shall stand adjourned to a future day of which notice shall be given in the prescribed manner and no quorum shall be necessary for any such adjourned meeting. (3) The Grama Sasan shall have the power to:– (a) Approve the plans, programmes and projects for social and economic development before such plans, programmes and projects are taken up for implementation by the Grama Panchayat; (b) Identify or select persons as beneficiaries under the poverty alleviation or similar other programmes: Provided that every Grama Panchayat shall be required to obtain from the Grama Sasan a certificate of utilisation of funds by that Panchayat for the plans, programmes and projects referred to in Clauses (a) and (b). (c) Consider and approve the annual budget of the Grama panchayat including the supplementary or revised budget. (d) Consider levy of all taxes, rates, rents and fees and enhancement of rates thereof. (e) Organise community service and drawing up and implementation of agricultural production plans. (f) Consider all such matters as may be referred to it by the Grama Panchayat for its decision. (g) Call for such information and data from the Grama Panchayat as it may consider necessary; (h) Consider such other matters as may be prescribed. (4) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1) the meetings of the Grama Sasan shall be convened by such authority, in such manner and at such time and intervals as may be repscribed. (5) The business of the Grama Sasan at the Grama Sabhas shall be conducted and the record of the proceedings thereof shall be maintained in the prescribed manner. (6) In the Scheduled Areas, the Grama Sasan shall be competent to safeguard and preserve the tradition and customs of the people, their cultural identity, community resources and customary mode of dispute resolution consistent with the relevant laws in force and in harmony with basic tenets of the Constitution and human rights." To identify beneficiaries under the poverty alleviation programmes or other similar programmes this will also not be infringed in the facts of this case because the beneficiaries has already been selected containing their names in the SECC 2011 survey list at the time of consideration of household for a special category. So far as power conferred under 3(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h) is not relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the issue involved in this case. Hence, from the facts stated herein above there is no violation of Section 5 of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964. 8. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the State that this Court sitting under Article 226 does not suppose to judicially scrutinise the policy decision of the Government and it can be judicially reviewed only when there is arbitrariness or unfair practise but no such point has been raised and pleadings in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is not fit to be entertained. In order to appreciate this issue it is relevant to refer the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh and another reported in (2008) 5 SCC 550 wherein at para-13 their lordships has been held that:- "In the matter of policy decisions, the scope of interference is extremely limited. The policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone can decide which policy should be adopted after considering all relevant aspects from different angles. In matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of fundamental right is not shown, courts will have no occasion to interfere and the court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the Court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government." Similarly reference may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Jharkhand and others v. Ashok Kumar Dangi and others reported in (2011) 13 SCC 383 wherein their lordships is of the view wherein at para-17 it has been held that:- "In framing of the policy, various inputs are required and it is neither desirable nor advisable for a court of law to direct or summarise the Government to adopt a particular policy which is deems fit or proper. It is well settled that the Stage Government must has liberty and freedom in framing policy." Thus it is settled that in the matter of policy decision, scope of judicial review under Article 226 is very limited unless infringement of human rights or arbitrariness is shown. But from entire pleading no such case has been made out by the petitioner and only case is that action of the Government is on violation of the Article 243G of the Constitution of India and Section 5 of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 but the said ground cannot be acceptable foregoing reasons. 9. So far as the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner has no locus standie because the petitioner has filed this writ petition on representative capacity being Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat and there is no resolution of the beneficiaries or the villagers of the concerned Gram Panchayat. Further there is not resolution by all the Gram Panchayat of the State of Odisha for whom the resolution has been adopted. No proper reply has been given by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard and no resolution has also been annexed in the entire writ petition. Accepting the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the State for the reason that there is no resolution on the part of the beneficiaries or the beneficiaries for whose benefits of resolution dated 9.6.2015 has been issued and in absence of any resolution it is not known that whether the beneficiaries or the villagers are at all disagreed with the decision of the Government or not. Furthermore, the resolution has been issued for implementation of the Scheme for the entire State of Odisha and it is not only for "the" Gram Panchayat to whom the petitioner is representing and in the entire record, there is no averment or resolution that the petitioner has been authorised on behalf of all other Gram Panchayats of the State to file this writ petition. Hence, the petitioner has got no locus standie to challenge the policy decision of the Government in the representative capacity having not been authorised by either by villagers of all villages of State of Odisha or by all Gram Panchayats through their Sarpanchs. 10. In that circumstances and reasons stated herein above, I find no merit in the writ petition. Hence, the petitioner has got no locus standie to challenge the policy decision of the Government in the representative capacity having not been authorised by either by villagers of all villages of State of Odisha or by all Gram Panchayats through their Sarpanchs. 10. In that circumstances and reasons stated herein above, I find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.