Orissa High Court
*** vs State Of Odisha & Others on 19 November, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.31906 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Rohit Kumar Dogra & Another
... Petitioners.
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha & Others
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioners : Mr. P.C. Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. T. Kumar, Addl. Standing Counsel.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing : 19.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 19.11.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners
praying for a direction to the Tahasildar, Bonei (Opp. Party
No.3) for registration of their application filed on dated
18.11.2024 i.e. original of Annexure-4 as a Case and to
proceed with the same for its disposal as per law, because in
spite of filing of the application (Original of Annexure-4) by the
petitioners before the Tahasildar, Bonei (Opp. Party No.3), the
Tahasildar, Bonei (Opp. Party No.3) is not registering their
application i.e. original of Annexure-4 as a Case, for which,
the petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for
directing Tahasildar, Bonei (Opp. Party No.3) for registration
of their application i.e. original of Annexure-4 as a Case and
to dispose of the said Case as per law.
2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the
State.
3. The law in respect of registration of an application of a
party by the Court or authority without sitting over the same
has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision:
In a case between Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs. District
Magistrate & Others reported in 2025 (3) Civ.C.C.
(Allh.) 159 that, if any party files an application before
any authority or Court, the said authority or Court
cannot sit over that application, but to register the
same as per law and to dispose of the same according
to law. The said Court or authority cannot retain the
same idle without acting upon that application or
petition.
4. In view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of
the aforesaid decision, it was the duty of the Tahasildar, Bonei
(Opp. Party No.3) to register the application i.e. original of
Annexure-4 as a Case and to proceed with the same for its
disposal as per law, but, the Tahasildar, Bonei (Opp. Party
No.3) has not done so.
So, for the reasons assigned above, there is justification
under law to direct the Tahasildar, Bonei (Opp. Party No.3)
through issuance of a Writ of Mandamus for registration of
the application i.e. original of Annexure-4 as a Case and after
registering the Case, he (Tahasildar, Bonei-Opp. Party No.3)
shall dispose of the same as per law.
Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is
allowed.
The Tahasildar, Bonei (Opp. Party No.3) is directed to
register the application dated 18.11.2024 of the petitioners i.e.
(original of Annexure-4) as a Case and to dispose of the said
Case as per law on the very same date of filing of the certified
copy of this Judgment before him by the petitioners.
5. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is
disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 18 .11. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Sr. Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.
