Harihara Lenka vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court held that the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Rural Works Development (Opposite Party No.1) shall examine the petitioner's representation dated June 3, 2022. Before passing a reasoned order, notice must be issued to the petitioner, and he must be given a hearing. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary is directed to pass the reasoned order not later than March 7, 2023. A copy of this order is to be provided to the petitioner within a week thereafter. The Court explicitly clarified that it has not expressed any view on the merits of the matter. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must consider and decide representations filed by citizens, following due process of notice and hearing, within a stipulated timeframe. The operative direction is the examination and disposal of the petitioner's representation.

Facts

The petitioner, Harihara Lenka, filed a representation dated June 3, 2022, with the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Rural Works Development (Opposite Party No.1). The details of the representation, including the specific GST issues and the amount in dispute, are not recorded in the judgment. The petitioner approached the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack through a writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 14671 of 2022) seeking a direction for the examination of his representation. The Opposite Parties include the State of Odisha and others, with specific counsel appearing for the CT & GST Organization and for Opposite Party Nos. 7 & 8.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Rural Works Development (Opposite Party No.1) is obligated to examine the petitioner's representation dated June 3, 2022, concerning GST matters? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, through his representation, sought the examination of certain GST-related issues. The writ petition was filed to ensure that this representation is considered by the concerned authority. Revenue/State's Contention: No specific argument is recorded for the revenue or state in the judgment. The court's order suggests an implicit acknowledgment of the need for the representation to be examined.