Banoj Kumar Mallick vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 15629 Ori

Orissa High Court

Banoj Kumar Mallick vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 5 December, 2023

Author: R.K. Pattanaik

Bench: R.K. Pattanaik

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                   W.P.(C) No.17357 of 2020
            Banoj Kumar Mallick                         ....             Petitioner
                                             M/s. P.K. Ray, Advocate & Associates


                                            -Versus-

            State of Odisha & others                    ....         Opposite Parties
                                                             Mr. J.P. Patra, ASC
                                        Mr. B.K. Sharma, Advocate for O.P. No.4
                                       Mr. M.K. Panda-1, Advocate for O.P. No.3

                       CORAM:
                       MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

                                            ORDER

05.12.2023 Order No.

03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging eviction and demolition of his OMFED Booth by the BMC.

3. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been no prior notice and the petitioner has been orally informed to vacate the OMFED Booth. It is submitted that by virtue of the interim order of this Court, the petitioner is still running the OMFED Booth.

4. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for opposite party No.4 submits that the filing of the writ petition is premature and the same is based on mere apprehension. In reply and in response to above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been threatened by the officials of BMC to vacate the OMFED Booth. Mr. Panda-1, learned counsel for BMC, however, submits that it is a mobile OMFED Booth, so therefore, there is no question of any notice to vacate the same by the petitioner. Furthermore, a

judgment of this Court in Laxmipriya Sahoo Vrs. Director of Estate & others and batch of cases is referred to by Mr. Panda-1, learned counsel for the BMC to contend that the case of the petitioner also does not merit consideration as it falls in Category 'A'.

5. In view of the contention of the BMC as above, an adjournment is prayed for to go through the said judgment and respond back. Considering such request of learned counsel for the petitioner, hearing of the matter stands adjourned.

6. List on 21st December, 2023.

7. Interim order passed by this Court earlier shall remain in force till the next date.

                                                                       (R.K. Pattanaik)
                       Balaram                                               Judge







Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 06-Dec-2023 19:07:23