Orissa High Court
Purna Chandra Mohapatra And vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 13 June, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.15872 of 2025
Purna Chandra Mohapatra and ..... Petitioners
others
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Prabhat Kumar
Sahoo
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Sachidananda Nayak,
ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
13.06.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as
learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused
the writ petition as well as the documents annexed
thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the
Petitioners with the following prayers:-
"Under the aforesaid facts &
circumstances of the case, it is therefore, prayed
that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be
pleased to :
(i) quash the Government Order dtd.13.06.2011
under Annexure-12 by concurrently holding the
same as bad, illegal and not sustainable or
maintainable in the eye of law;
(ii) quash the order passed by Puri
Municipality vide Order No. 3239 dtd.l3.05.2011
and order No. 4113 dtd.13.06.2011 under
Annexure-13 and 14 respectively. Keeping in
view of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court,
dtd.24.03.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.
20715/2011 as the issue involved in the instant
case is squarely covered under the same;
And pass any other order(s) as would be
deemed fit and proper for the ends of justice."
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioners
that the issue that is involved in the present writ petition
was also subject matter of dispute in W.P.(C) No.20715
of 2011. He further contended that a coordinate Bench of
this Court vide judgment dated 24.03.2025 has already
disposed of the said writ petition. On such ground,
learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that
the case of the Petitioners is squarely covered by the ratio
laid down by the coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No.20715
of 2011. He further submitted that the Petitioners have
already ventilated their grievance before Opposite Party
No.2 by filing a detailed representation on 07.04.2025
under Annexure-15 to the writ petition and the same is
stated to be pending before the Opposite Party No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
contended that since the Petitioners have already
submitted their representation and the same is still
pending before the Opposite Party No.2, he will have no
objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite
Party No.2 to take a decision on the representation of the
Petitioners in accordance with law and within a stipulated
period of time.
6. Considering such submission, this Court disposes of
the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to
dispose of the representation of the Petitioner dated
07.04.2025 under Annexure-15 to the writ petition, if the
same is still pending, within a period of two months from
the date of communication of a certified copy of this
order. While considering the representation of the
Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.2 shall take into
consideration the judgment of this Court in Nabakishore
Nayak and others v. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C)
No.20715 of 2011 disposed of vide judgment dated
24.03.2025).
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Vacation Judge
Debasis
