CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has overturned a government inquiry report that deemed several beneficiaries ineligible for the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana–Gramin (PMAY-G). The court ruled the inquiry did not adhere to established guidelines and was therefore invalid.
Ten residents from Gopinathpur panchayat in Bhadrak district challenged the government’s decision to deny them PMAY-G benefits. An initial block-level inquiry identified 258 eligible beneficiaries, including the petitioners, with the gram sabha approving their names on January 30, 2023. Consequently, work orders were issued on June 19, 2023, and some beneficiaries received the first installment of ₹40,000.
However, Malatilata Sahoo, a village resident, filed a complaint on June 27, 2023, claiming that ineligible beneficiaries had been included. Following this, authorities conducted a second inquiry, declaring the ten petitioners ineligible and demanding the return of released funds. The petitioners subsequently approached the High Court to contest the second inquiry report and challenge the refund orders while seeking the release of their pending PMAY-G installments.
Upon delivering the judgment on October 24, Justice Sashikanta Mishra noted that the complaint prompting the second inquiry was submitted well beyond the allowed timeframe for objections. He stated, “The complaint submitted by Malatilata Sahoo is vague and inconclusive,” and, thus, the second inquiry report dated July 7, 2023, was quashed. The court declared the actions taken to deny benefits to the petitioners as invalid.
Justice Mishra ordered authorities to implement the gram sabha’s resolution from January 30, 2023, and ensure the release of the eligible PMAY-G benefits to petitioners “without further delay,” instructing completion of the process within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.
The judge emphasized that when the complaint was filed, the gram sabha had already approved the beneficiaries, work orders had been issued, and some first installments had already been distributed. “Even if the complaint were to be taken as valid, it suggests that the original field inquiry, conducted by responsible government officials, was flawed. No evidence was provided to demonstrate that the inquiry was faulty or done with ill intent,” he remarked.
The court further highlighted that the second inquiry, initiated by the block development officer, was conducted ex-parte without involving the petitioners and other beneficiaries, and remarked that the authorities contradicted themselves by continuing to issue installments to some beneficiaries, despite the second report labeling them as ineligible.
