Orissa High Court
Odisha State Civil Supplies vs Gouri Barik And Another on 20 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.57 of 2022
Odisha State Civil Supplies
Corporation Ltd. .... Appellant
Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Gouri Barik and Another .... Respondents
M/s. Jajati Kishore Mohanty, Advocate
Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 20.03.2023
02. 1. This is a second round of litigation concerning the subject
matter of the present appeal. In the earlier round, the learned
Single Judge had by the impugned order dated 1st August, 2019
allowed W.P.(C) No.13177 of 2019 and the connected writ petition
on the very first day without opportunity to the present Appellant
to file reply to the writ petition.
2. On that short ground, this Court had on 25th October, 2021 set
aside those orders and remanded the matter to the learned Single
Judge for a fresh disposal after completion of pleadings in a time
bound manner.
3. The Court is informed that pleadings were in fact completed
within the time stipulated by this Court in the aforementioned
order dated 25th October, 2021.
4. However, when the writ petition was taken up for final hearing
by the learned Single Judge that was again being disposed of by a
short order dated 7th January, 2022 which reads as under:
"This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. It is agreed by learned counsel for the parties
that the issue involved in this case is analogous to
one involved in W.P.(C) No.19951 of 2020, which
has been disposed of vide judgment dated
09.09.2021.
4. Therefore, in view of the reasons stated in the
detailed judgment dated 09.09.2021 passed in
W.P.(C) No.19951 of 2020, this writ petition is
allowed in terms of the said judgment."
5. At the outset, Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
Appellant informs the Court that although in para 3 of the
impugned order it is recorded that "it is agreed by learned counsel
for the parties..." the counter affidavit filed by the present
Appellant states to the contrary and there was no question of
agreeing to the submissions of the counsel for the writ Petitioner
i.e. Respondent herein. It is unable to be disputed by learned
counsel for the Respondent herein that the impugned order does
not deal with the pleadings in the writ petition which had been
completed pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 25th
October, 2021.
6. Indeed, the Court finds that there is no discussion at all in the
impugned order of the pleadings in the writ petition which was the
precise reason why the earlier order was set aside to enable the
learned Single Judge to appreciate the stand of the respective
parties in their pleadings apart from the submissions made in
Court.
7. The Court is accordingly constrained to again set aside the
impugned order dated 6th December, 2021 passed by the learned
Single Judge and restore the writ petition to the file of the learned
Single Judge for being heard on merits.
8. It is made clear that since the pleadings in the writ petition are
already completed there will be no occasion now for the parties to
add to those pleadings. The learned Single Judge in the roster
Bench is requested to proceed with the hearing of the writ petition
on merits, on the basis of the existing pleadings and dispose it of as
expeditiously as possible. The writ petition will now be listed
before the roster Bench of learned Single Judge on 11th May, 2023.
9. The writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
S.K. Jena/Secy.
