Orissa High Court
Ashok Kumar Girdharlal @ vs State Of Orissa And Others on 1 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 26308 of 2019
Ashok Kumar Girdharlal @ ..... Petitioners
Giridhar Lal and another
Mr. B. Dash, Advocate
Vs.
State of Orissa and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. J. P. Patnaik, G.A.,
Mr. A.K. Nayak, Advocate (O.P.2),
Mr. U.C. Mohanty, Advocate (O.P.4) &
Mr. D.R. Bhokta, CGC along with Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI
(O.Ps. 5 to 7 & 11 to 13)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMAN
ORDER
01.05.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
05.
2. Heard Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. J.P.
Patnaik, learned Government Advocate, Mr. A.K. Nayak, learned counsel
appearing for opposite party no.2, Mr. U.C. Mohanty, learned counsel
appearing for opposite party no.4 and Mr. D.R. Bhokta, learned Central
Government Counsel along with Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI for opposite
parties 5 to 7 and 11 to 13.
3. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the
receipt dated 29.10.2019 and the disbursement of compensation in favour of
opposite party no.2. The petitioners have further prayed for a direction to
opposite party no.2 to refund the amount of compensation in favour of the
L.A.O. with interest within a stipulated period and to direct opposite party
no.1 to make an inquiry for illegal disbursement of compensation by the
ARUN Digitally
signed by
KUMAR ARUN KUMAR L.A.O. in contravention to the orders passed by this Court so also the
MISHRA
MISHR Date:
2023.05.02 judgment dated 24.09.2019 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division,
A 11:26:36
+05'30'
Athamallik in Civil Suit No. 16 of 2015.
4. Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that
against the order passed in Civil Suit No. 16 of 2015, since 1st appeal was
pending and in the meantime the same has already been disposed of, the
benefit should have been extended in favour of the petitioners.
5. Mr. U.C. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.4
contended that if the 1st appeal has been disposed of in that case, there
should not have been any impediment on the part of the authority to
disburse the compensation amount.
6. However, the same has been vehemently opposed by Mr. A.K.
Nayak, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 by contending that
against the order passed in the 1st appeal, RSA No. 105 of 2023 has been
filed before this Court and this Court has already admitted the same and the
matter is pending adjudication. Mr. D.R. Bhokta, learned Central
Government Counsel and Mr. J.P. Patnaik, learned Government Advocate
also endorsed such contention of Mr. A.K. Nayak, learned counsel for
opposite party no.2.
7. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of permitting
the petitioners to pursue their remedy after disposal of RSA No. 105 of
2023. After disposal of the RSA, necessary steps shall also be taken by the
authorities for disbursement of the compensation amount to the person
entitled to get the same.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Arun (M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
