Skip to content


Anchalika Pallibikash Jubak Sangh Vs. State of Orissa and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberOriginal Jurn. Case No. 1669 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1985Ori244; 1985(I)OLR115
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226; Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1960 - Sections 38(2)
AppellantAnchalika Pallibikash Jubak Sangh
RespondentState of Orissa and ors.
Appellant AdvocateS.C. Dash and ;B.K. Patnaik, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateR.K. Patra, Addl. Govt. Adv.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Cases ReferredKasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu
Excerpt:
.....gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - 2) had recommended for establishment of this dispensary at khanati and had reiterated his recommendation to a further query made by the state government, but after due consideration of the claims of and objections from all quarters, the state government decided to establish the dispensary at kadaba......its general secretary has in this writ application challenged annexure-7, the decision of the state government, for establishment of an ayurvedic dispensary at kadaba and not at khanati for which a demand had been raised by the villagers.2. as has been submitted before us by dr. dash, for the petitioner and mr. r.k. patra, the learned additional governement advocate, there are no statutory provisions governing the establishment of such dispensaries and giving guidelines as to their locations. the collector, puri (opposite party no. 2) had recommended for establishment of this dispensary at khanati and had reiterated his recommendation to a further query made by the state government, but after due consideration of the claims of and objections from all quarters, the state government.....
Judgment:

Behera, J.

1. The Anchalika Pallibikash Jubak Sangh at Khanati through its General Secretary has in this writ application challenged Annexure-7, the decision of the State Government, for establishment of an Ayurvedic dispensary at Kadaba and not at Khanati for which a demand had been raised by the villagers.

2. As has been submitted before Us by Dr. Dash, for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Patra, the learned Additional Governement Advocate, there are no statutory provisions governing the establishment of such dispensaries and giving guidelines as to their locations. The Collector, Puri (opposite party No. 2) had recommended for establishment of this dispensary at Khanati and had reiterated his recommendation to a further query made by the State Government, but after due consideration of the claims of and objections from all quarters, the State Government decided to establish the dispensary at Kadaba. No constitutional mandate has been infringed nor any statutory provision has been violated. No decision had been taken by the State Government for establishing any dispensary at Khanati and not at Kadaba and, therefore, the doctrine of estoppel does not arise.

3. In the case reported in ILR (1977) 1 Cut 819 Lokanath Rout v. State of Orissa to which reference had been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, having taken into consideration the statutory violations, issued a direction for the establishment of a school at a particular place. Such a question does not arise in the case before us.

4. Section 38(2) of the Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, providing for issuance of a notice to show cause before cancellation of any resolution or order passed by a Samiti which has been referred to and relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no application in this case as there had been no such resolution or order.

5. In AIR 1980 SC 1992, Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, The Supreme Court has observed and held para 14) :

'Where any governmental action fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest discussed above and is found to be wanting in the quality of reasonableness or lacking in the element of public interest, it would be liable to be struck down as invalid.

xxxxx

There may be an infinite variety of considerations which may have to be taken into account by the Government in formulating its policies and it is on a total evaluation of various considerations which have weighed with the Government in taking a particular action, that the Court would have to decide whether the action of the Govt. is reasonable and in public interest. But one basic principle which must guide the Court in arriving at its determination on this question is that there is always a presumption that the governmental action is reasonable and in public interest and it is for the party challenging its validity to show that it is wanting in reasonableness or is not informed with public interest. This burden is a heavy one and it has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the Court by proper and adequate material.....'

The administrative decision arrived at reasonably and after due consideration for establishing an Ayurvedic dispensary at Kadaba is not to be annulled by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. It would not be out of place to mention here that the materials placed before us do indicate the availability of medicalfacilities to the inhabitants of Khanati not far away from the village.

6. The writ application fails and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs of this proceeding.

Patnaik, J.

7. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //