WP(C)/27176/2026 of SUCHITRA NAYAK Vs UNION OF INDIA on 28 August 2026

ORDER

28.08.2026

01. (Through Hybrid Mode)

1. This writ application has been filed with the following prayer:

“It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this Writ Petition, issue notice to Opp. Parties and after hearing from both parties, issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other suitable form of writ, and this Hon'ble Court may kindly be directed to the authorities-opp. parties to consider the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-6 and to issue the work order for the construction of pacca house under the aforesaid scheme i.e. Pradhan Mantri Gramin

Awas Yojana (PMGAY) as per the Awaas soft generated draft priority list under Annexure-5 for the interest of Justice.

And issue any other order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper giving complete Justice to the petitioner.

And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

2. It is unfortunate that writ petitions are being filed with prayer for issue of a direction to dispose of a representation. Such a prayer is not of much benefit to the litigant, as more often than not, he / she will have to come back again to the Court with another petition for adjudication on merits, which could have been done in the first instance itself, albeit not as swiftly as the counsel for the Petitioner would have desired.

3. In the case of Government of India and another vs P. Venkatesh: AIR ONLINE 2019 SC 363, the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of “dispose of representation" holding as follows:

"This 'dispose of the representation' mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High

Courts and the Tribunals. Such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no service to the cause of justice. The litigant is back again before the Court, as this case shows, having incurred attendant costs and suffered delays of the legal process. This would have been obviated by calling for a counter in the first instance, thereby resulting in finality to the dispute."

4. Specific prayer for disposal of representation are made in writ petitions for a variety of reasons which may include:

i) avoid arguing a writ application on merit,

ii) quick disposal of the writ application as waiting for a counter will result in delay in disposal of the writ petition.

iii) The authority may have assured the petitioner of a favourable order, but requires a direction from the Court for doing so or for passing an order out of turn.

5. Of course, in some cases the Court after considering the case of the parties may direct that a reasoned order be passed by an authority.

6. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as the representation earlier submitted by the Petitioner, does not contain all the particulars, the Petitioner will file a comprehensive representation before Opposite Party No.5

within a period of two weeks and submits that his representation may be favourably considered as the name of the Petitioner figures at Serial No.260 in the draft priority list, issued by the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.

7. Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned counsel files appearance memo on behalf of Opposite Party No.1. The same is taken on record.

8. The writ application is disposed of without issuing any direction.

9. The Petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application before Opposite Party No.5 along with supporting documents within a period of two weeks for its consideration in accordance with law.

10. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case of the Petitioner.

11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

(Savitri Ratho)

Judge RKS Digitally Signed Signed by: RANJAN KUMAR SETHI Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-Aug-2026 19:36:29 Signature Not Verified