Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 972 (ORI)

Subash Chandra Biswal v. State of Odisha

2016-10-25

B.R.SARANGI, VINEET SARAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : VINEET SARAN, J. This is a writ petition filed in the nature of public interest litigation by some of the residents of village Purusottampur under Bonth Block in the district of Bhadrak. The petitioners claim that they would be entitled to the benefits of the scheme floated by the Government of Odisha, Sports and Youth Services Department on 06.02.2013, which was for “construction of mini stadium at Block Level”. The guidelines for the scheme had also been issued and, according to the petitioners, as per the said guidelines, the proposal for construction of mini stadium could be given by the local MP, MLA and District Collector. The funds for construction of the mini stadium would be from MPLAD or MLALAD. The criteria for sanction of the mini stadium would be “first come first served” principle. 2. The facts in brief are that after the scheme was promulgated by State Government on 06.02.2013, the first proposal was given on 23.07.2014 by the local MLA proposing for construction of mini stadium at Netaji playground at village Purusottampur under Bonth Block in the district of Bhadrak. The said application was submitted by the local MLA to the Collector, Bhadrak on the representation of the petitioners and other residents of village Purusottampur made on 05.07.2014. In response thereto, the Collector, Bhadrak recommended for construction of mini stadium at Netaji Playground on 13.08.2014. Then, instead of approving the proposal of the Collector, Bhadrak dated 13.08.2014, the State Government considered another proposal of the local MP dated 29.08.2014, wherein it was stated that the proposal of Tillo Athletic Association for upgradation of Hanuman Jew Playfield dated 01.12.2012 be considered as a proposal for construction of mini stadium. On the said recommendation of the local MP dated 29.08.2014, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Sports and Youth Services Department directed on 04.09.2014 to include the proposal in the scheme of Block Level mini stadium. The said letter of the local MP refers to the letter of the District Collector dated 01.12.2012, which was merely with regard to development of the existing playfield and not for construction of mini stadium. Then, by order dated 25.02.2015, the State Government has approved the construction of mini stadium at Hanuman Jew Playground in the same Block of Bonth in the district of Bhadrak. Then, by order dated 25.02.2015, the State Government has approved the construction of mini stadium at Hanuman Jew Playground in the same Block of Bonth in the district of Bhadrak. Pursuant thereto, on 10.03.2015, the Collector, Bhadrak issued a sanction letter in favour of construction of mini stadium at Hanuman Jew Playground. Aggrieved by the said orders dated 25.02.2015 and 10.03.2015, this writ petition has been filed. In the meantime, it appears that when the amount was not released in favour of construction of mini stadium at Hanuman Jew Playground, the residents of village Tillo filed W.P.(C) No. 7338 of 2015 with the prayer for starting construction in terms of the sanction order dated 25.02.2015 and order of the Collector dated 10.03.2015. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 17.07.2015 directing the Collector, Bhadrak to take a fresh decision in the matter. The Collector, Bhadrak, after hearing the parties concerned, passed an order on 11.09.2015 directing that Rs.10.00 lakh each be given to both the playgrounds, i.e., Hanuman Jew Playground and Netaji Playground for their development, and not for construction of a mini stadium under the scheme, because as per the scheme dated 06.02.2013 only one mini stadium could be constructed in one Block. The said order dated 11.09.2015 has not been challenged in this writ petition because this writ petition was filed prior to passing of the said order, but the same has been brought on record along with the counter affidavit filed by the State. 3. We have heard Mr. A. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as Mr. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties, and also Mr. S.B. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the intervenors/petitioners in W.P.(C) No.7338 of 2015, and perused the records. 4. From the record it is clear that the first and only application filed under the scheme dated 06.02.2013 for construction of mini stadium in Bonth Block of district Bhadrak was that of the local MLA, which was for Netaji Playground, and is dated 23.07.2014. The same was favourably recommended by the Collector, Bhadrak on 13.08.2014. On the record, there was no application filed by the Member of Parliament or any other person for construction of mini stadium at Hanuman Jew, Playground. The same was favourably recommended by the Collector, Bhadrak on 13.08.2014. On the record, there was no application filed by the Member of Parliament or any other person for construction of mini stadium at Hanuman Jew, Playground. The recommendation of the Collector, Bhadrak on 01.12.2012 was for development of the Playfield and not for construction of mini stadium. The same was recommended by the Collector, Bhadrak on an application filed by some of the members of Tillo Athletic Association of village Tillo on 16.09.2012, which was for sanction of funds for development of the playground. Neither the application dated 16.09.2012 nor the recommendation of the Collector dated 01.12.2012 can be treated as an application under the scheme dated 06.02.2013 for construction of mini stadium. The application for construction of mini stadium under the scheme could be filed only after the promulgation of the scheme, and admittedly the first and only application was that of the local MLA, which was dated 23.07.2014. Even if for the sake of argument the recommendation of the local Member of Parliament dated 29.08.2014 is treated as an application for construction of the mini stadium, then too the same was subsequent to the application dated 23.07.2014, and as per the guidelines issued under the scheme, the application filed first is to be given priority, as the selection criteria clearly stated that the “first come first served principle shall be applied”. By saying this, we are not expressing an opinion that the letter of the local Member of Parliament dated 29.08.2014 merits consideration as an application under the scheme. 5. In T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440 , the apex Court held that the object of the writ of certiorari is to keep inferior courts and quasi-judicial authorities within the limits of their jurisdiction; and if they act in excess of their jurisdiction their decisions can be quashed by superior courts by issuing writ. Similar view has also been taken in Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 SC 167 , Dwarka Nath v. ITO, AIR 1966 SC 81 and other judgments by the apex Court. Wade & Forsyth, Administrative Law (2009) 510 states as follows: “[The quashing order] Certiorari is used to bring up into the High Court the decision of some inferior tribunal or authority in order that it may be investigated. Wade & Forsyth, Administrative Law (2009) 510 states as follows: “[The quashing order] Certiorari is used to bring up into the High Court the decision of some inferior tribunal or authority in order that it may be investigated. If the decision does not pass the test, it is quashed that is to say, it is declared completely invalid, so that no one need respect it. The underlying policy is that all inferior courts and authorities have only limited jurisdiction or power and must be kept within their legal bounds. This is the concern of the Crown, for the sake of orderly administration of justice, but it is a private complaint which sets the Crown in motion.” Certiorari in this sense is a “great corrective writ” by which superior courts (Supreme Court and High Court) exercise supervisory jurisdiction over inferior courts, tribunals, boards, authorities and officers exercising judicial and quasi-judicial powers and by which their records and proceedings are brought under review with the sole object that all abuses of powers may be corrected and they may be prevented from transcending powers conferred upon them. 6. In Province of Bombay v. Kushal Das, AIR 1950 SC 222 , the apex Court held that a writ of certiorari will lie to control a statutory body which can be said to be quasi-judicial entrusted with quasi-judicial functions. There are three requisites in order that the act of a body may be said to be quasi-judicial act, namely that the body of persons (a) must have legal authority, (b) to determine question affecting rights of parties, and (c) must have the duty to act judicially. Since a writ of certiorari can be issued only to correct the errors of a Court or a quasi-judicial body it would follow with the rule and determining test for ascertaining whether an act authorized by a statute is quasi-judicial act or an administrative act and whether the statute expressly or impliedly imposed upon the statutory body the duty to act judicially as required by the third condition. Where the authority, which is not a Court, is empowered by the statute to decide a dispute between parties and there is nothing in the statute to the contrary, the authority is under a duty to act judicially and the decision of the authority is a quasi-judicial act; and when statutory authority has power to do an act, which will affect the rights of a subject, then although there are no two parties and the contest is between the authority and the subject-the final determination of the authority will be quasi-judicial act provided the statute required the authority to act judicially. Similar view has also been taken in Radheshyam Khare v. State of M.P., AIR 1959 SC 107 . 7. Applying the underlying principles as discussed in the aforesaid cases to the present context and in view of the analysis made above, the recommendation made by the Collector, Bhadrak dated 13.08.2014 to the Director of Sports and Youth Services recommending the construction of mini stadium at Netaji Playfield ought to have been considered as the valid application under the scheme, as admittedly the said proposal of the MLA dated 23.07.2014 fulfilled all the criteria under the scheme dated 06.02.2013 and the guidelines issued thereunder. The order passed thereafter on 25.02.2015 sanctioning the expenditure for construction of mini stadium at Hanuman Jew Playground, was thus not in accordance with the scheme floated by the State Government on 06.02.2013 and in so far as the sanction of the amount for construction of mini stadium at Hanuman Jew Playground by the said order dated 25.02.2015 deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. The consequential order dated 10.03.2015 is also accordingly quashed. 8. As regards the order of the Collector, Bhadrak dated 11.09.2015, it may be stated that the same is also not in accordance with the scheme dated 06.02.2013, as, though the Collector had himself accepted that the application dated 01.12.2012 could not be considered as an application under the scheme dated 06.02.2013, yet without following the guidelines under the scheme, the Collector has recommended that money be given for both the playfields, i.e., Hanuman Jew Playfield and Netaji Playfield. The same, being not in terms of the guidelines of the scheme dated 06.02.2013, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is accordingly quashed. The same, being not in terms of the guidelines of the scheme dated 06.02.2013, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is accordingly quashed. The consequential order dated 17.10.2015 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Sports & Youth Services Department, Government of Odisha in terms of the order of the Collector dated 11.09.2015 also stands quashed, as even though such prayer may not have been made in the writ petition, but since the said order has been filed with the counter affidavit and we are hearing this petition as a public interest litigation, we have taken cognizance of the same and dealt with it on merits. 9. The writ petition stands allowed. The orders impugned are quashed and the opposite parties are directed to issue necessary direction for construction of mini stadium at Netaji Playground at Purusottampur village under Bonth Block of district Bhadrak as per the scheme of the State Government dated 06.02.2013 and the guidelines issued therein. No order as to cost.