Orissa High Court
Puspanjali Tripathy And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others on 19 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No.16134 of 2018
Puspanjali Tripathy and others ..... Petitioners
Mr.M.K.Mohanty, Adv.
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.Jena, SC,
School & Mass Education Department
Mr.B.Routray, Sr. Adv. along with
Mr. B.S.Tripathy-1, Adv.
(Private opp. parties)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
19.05.2022
Order No. I.A. No.17217 of 2019
19.
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This I.A. has been filed by the petitioners for amendment of the
writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Mr. M.K.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that he has filed this I.A. to insert certain words to the prayer portion of
the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the other sides have no objection to the
amendment, as sought for.
6. Considering the grounds taken in the I.A. and the submissions
made, prayer is allowed.
7. The I.A. is disposed of.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(SAVITRI RATHO)
JUDGE
W.P (C) No.16134 of 2018
20. Mr. B.Routray, learned Senior Advocate for the private opp.
parties brings to the notice of this Court that a similar matter had been
filed by the State in W.P. (C) No.10125 of 2022 and this Court
dismissed the said writ petition on 11.5.2022 on the ground of delay
and latches followed by the same batch of matters containing similar
issues have already been dismissed by this Court. Hence, in view of
dismissal of the writ petitions preferred by the State, the benefits have
already been extended to the applicant (s) therein by giving promotion.
To that effect, Mr. Routray has produced the order passed by this Court
on 11.5.2022 in W.P. (C) No.10125 of 2022, by which the said writ
petition has been dismissed on the ground of delay. Thus, it is
contended that this writ petition should be dismissed taking into
consideration the fact that in analogous cases also benefits have already
been extended to the aggrieved person (s).
2. Mr. B.S.Tripathy, learned counsel for opp. parties also brings to
the notice of this Court the judgment in the case of Nityananda
Panigrahi and others v. Commissioner of Consolidation, Orissa,
Sambalpur and others reported in 1994 (II) OLR 214, wherein this
Court has already held that the single writ petition seeking to quash
different orders in different proceedings is not maintainable. The Court
further held that since the order has been passed by the learned single
Member of the tribunal, the petitioner could have gone to a Division
Bench of the tribunal, but instead of doing so, he has approached this
Court in the present writ petition, which is not maintainable. In that
view of the matter, both Mr. B.Routray, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the private opposite parties and Mr. B.S.Tripathy, learned
counsel for the opp. Party No.1 pray for dismissal of the writ petition
on the above mentioned score and also produced and rely upon the
judgments/orders of this Court in W.P. (C) No.33919 of 2020
(Nilamani Mohapatra and others v. State of Odisha and another)
disposed of on 11.02.2022 and W.P. (C) No.22692 of 2020 (Nilamani
Mohapatra and others v. State of Odisha and others) disposed of on
21.12.2021 contended that in view of the decision taken by this Court
in the above referred cases, there remains nothing to be decided in the
present writ petition, therefore, the writ petition should be disposed of
in terms of the judgments/orders of this Court in W.P. (C) No.10125 of
2022, W.P. (C) No.22692 of 2020 and W.P. (C) No.33919 of 2020.
3. As prayed for by Mr. M.K.Mohanty, learned counsel for the
petitioners, call this matter after ensuing summer vacation.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(SAVITRI RATHO)
JUDGE
Ashok/Bichi
