AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. R. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client’s thatched house was demolished. Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) initially allowed his client to stay with his family in a transit house and after that in a flat constructed by the authority. His client paid the margin money and thereafter made application dated 11th February, 2020, to the Deputy Commissioner but the allotment has not yet been made. On the other hand, his client is being threatened eviction because there has not been allotment.
Mr. S.K. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on behalf Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation and prays for further adjournment. Mr. R. Sahoo opposes the prayer.
Adjournment on behalf of BMC was obtained on 11th April, 2023 and 16th May, 2023. It is true that petitioner is enjoying interim protection but that cannot be a ground for further adjournment.
Conduct of BMC in not issuing instruction is, in effect, acceptance of the interim order. There is, therefore, no reason why it should not be confirmed for disposal of the writ petition.
BMC is directed to take a decision on petitioner’s occupation of the flat. In event, BMC decides not to allot the flat to petitioner, it must inform him the reasons. In event of allotment, petitioner is to comply with the requisitions. Till four weeks after decision, if made not to allot, is made known to petitioner, BMC is restrained from taking any coercive action against him.
The writ petition is disposed of.
………………………..