Orissa High Court
N. Siva Sankar & Another vs Sub-Collector-Cum-Special .... ... on 9 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.23699 of 2024
N. Siva Sankar & another .... Petitioners
Mr. M. Agarwal,
Advocate
-versus-
Sub-Collector-cum-Special .... Opposite Parties
Certificate Officer,
Bhubaneswar & another
Mr. Debashis Tripathy, AGA
(For Opposite party No.1)
Mr. P.K. Bhuyan, Advocate
(For Opposite Party No.2)
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
09.04.2025
I.A. No.2376 of 2025
Order No.
08. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This I.A. has been filed for modification of order dated
19.12.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.23699 of 2024, vide
which the writ petition was disposed of, and to give
opportunity to the Opposite Party No.2 to put forth its
stand.
3. It has been pleaded in the I.A. that, though Odisha
Cooperative Housing Corporation Limited was impleaded as
Opposite Party No.2, due to defect in the address of the
Corporation, the cause title was amended subsequently.
After getting notice from this Court, the Opposite Party
No.2 appeared through the lawyer, namely, Pradipta
Kishore Bhuyan, who filed his Vakalatnama on
09.12.2024. However, the writ petition was disposed of on
19.12.2024 without hearing the Opposite Party No.2, as
the name of the advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 was
not reflected in the cause list dated 19.12.2024.
4. Though no document has been appended to the I.A.
to demonstrate before this Court that Mr. Bhuyan filed the
Vakalatnama on 09.12.2024, on being asked, Mr. Bhuyan
hands up photocopy of the Vakalatnama dated 09.12.2024
along with the receipt granted by the computerized filing
counter of this Court dated 09.12.2024, which are taken
on record.
5. It is ascertained from the order sheet that, prior to
amendment of the cause title of the writ petition, Mr.
Bhuyan was representing Mrs. Gitanjali Pattnaik, who was
the Ex-Managing Director of the Odisha Co-operative
Housing Corporation Ltd. (Opposite Party No.2). Mr. Bhuyan
appeared on 30.10.2024 and submitted that since his client is
no more continuing as the Managing Director of the Odisha Co-
operative Housing Corporation Ltd., the cause title of the writ
petition needs amendment. Accordingly, I.A. No.14966 of 2024
being filed for amendment of the cause title, the same was
allowed vide order dated 19.11.2024 directing the Petitioner to
file the consolidated cause title by 20.11.2024. It was ordered to
issue notice to the Opposite Party No.2 by Registered Post with
A.D. and list the matter in the week commencing from 16th
December, 2024.
6. The tracking report on record indicates that the notice
was delivered on the Opposite Party No.2 Corporation on
05.12.2024, pursuant to which, the Opposite Party No.2
appeared on 09.12.2024 by filing Vakalatnama with the
Registry, which is on record.
7. Mr. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner
submits, the cause list of this Court dated 19.11.2024,
downloaded from the website of this Court, indicates that the
name of Mr. P.K. Samal, learned Counsel, who has power for the
OP Corporation along with Mr. Bhuyan, learned Counsel, was
appearing in the cause list dated 19.12.2024, on which date the
matter stood disposed of directing the Opposite Party No.1
(Certificate Officer) to conclude the C.C. Case No.17 of 2020
expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the
date of production of the certified copy of the said order. Mr.
Agarwal further submits, the said period of six months, as
directed by this Court, is yet to expire.
8. Mr. Agarwal submits, Mr. Bhuyan was the Counsel for the
previous Managing Director, who was representing Opposite
Party No.2 Corporation before amendment of the cause title of
the writ petition. After amendment also he is the counsel for the
Corporation. The name of Mr. P.K. Samal, learned Counsel for
Opposite Party No.2 Corporation was also appearing in the
cause list. Hence, prayer for modification of the order deserves
to be rejected.
9. Mr. Agarwal submits that C.C. Case No.17 of 2020 is
pending for the last five years and because of the inaction of the
authority concerned, his client was being constrained to
approach this Court seeking for a direction to conclude the said
C.C. case within a stipulated period.
10. Mr. Agarwal further submits, the direction given by this
Court vide order dated 19.12.2024 is to conclude the certificate
proceeding within a stipulated period in terms of the Judgment
of the Supreme Court, reported in 2021 (6) SCC 418 (Rahul S.
Shah Vs. Jinendra Gandhi). The present Opposite Party No.2,
who is the Certificate Debtor in C.C. Case No.17 of 2020, has a
right to have its say before the Certificate Officer (Opposite Party
No.1). There is no such observation made by this Court vide
order dated 19.12.2024 not to give any opportunity to the
Opposite Party No.2, who is the Applicant in this I.A.. Hence,
the apprehension of the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party
No.2 that the Certificate Officer may not grant opportunity to
the Corporation to have its say is baseless.
11. Admittedly, the name of Mr. P.K. Samal, learned Counsel,
appeared along with Mr. Bhuyan, learned Counsel to represent
the Opposite Party No.2, was appearing in the cause list of this
Court dated 19.12.2024. Apart from that, it was well within the
knowledge of Opposite Party No.2 as to pendency of the writ
petition. This Court, without expressing any opinion on merit,
disposed of the writ petition by targeting C.C. Case No.17 of
2020, pending in the Court of Sub-Collector-cum-Special
Certificate Officer, Bhubaneswar. Hence, this Court is of the
view that there is no need to modify the order dated 19.12.2024
passed in the writ petition, as the Opposite party No-2, who is
the Certificate Debtor in C.C. Case No.17 of 2020, is well aware
about pendency of the said case and will no way be prejudiced
by the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by this Court.
12. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.
(S. K. Mishra)
Prasant Judge
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 10-Apr-2025 17:13:48
