[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Srujeet Khuntia vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 15 April, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) PIL No.6181 of 2026
Srujeet Khuntia .... Petitioner
Mr.Deba Narayan Pattnaik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr.Debashis Tripathy, Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 15.04.2026
01. 1. Drawing an inspiration from the public notice
(Annexure-9) issued by the Additional Secretary,
Revenue and Disaster Management Department
proposing to change the spelling of several places within
the State of Odisha, the present writ petition giving a
colour of a Public Interest Litigation is filed by the
petitioner seeking the spelling of the City of Cuttack as
"Katak" instead of "Cuttack".
2. Before we embark our journey of deciding the cause,
concern whereof is shown in the instant writ petition, it
is pertinent to recapitulate that the petitioner approached
this Court for the identical reliefs on earlier two
occasions, wherein the first writ petition ended with a
blessing of approaching the Government flagging such
issue in the form of a representation to be decided by the
concerned Government whereas the second writ petition
received dismissal at the threshold as it did not involve
any public element and the public interest litigation in
this regard is not maintainable.
3. As indicated in the first paragraph of the notice, the
petitioner gets emboldened with such public notice
where the Government took a conscious decision to
correct the spellings of several places and trying to
convince the Court that the Government have ignored
the spelling of the City of Cuttack which ought to have
been corrected in the manner as suggested and/or prayed
for in the instant public interest litigation.
4. The counsel for the petitioner vociferously submits that
"Cuttack" was spelt as "Katak" in many documents
including the certificate issued by the Education
Department, the Univerisites and the Colleges having
great reputation in the country, and therefore, the
Government cannot ignore such aspect and must restore
such spelling.
5. It is within the domain of the Government to take a
conscious decision to write the name of a place and in
the event the Government thinks that the place has been
wrongly spelt, the decision may be taken in this regard
which in fact has been taken in relation to several places
enumerated within such public notice. The Court should
not extend its powers enshrined under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in dealing with all such cases
which is within the exclusive domain of the Government
nor the Court should use the power conferred upon the
Executives/Bureaucrats taking shelter under the
aforesaid provision. The separation of powers is not
only real but also be realized when litigation in the
nature of public interest is filed before the Court.
Precisely such concept has been reiterated in a preceding
public interest litigation filed by the petitioner which
was dismissed on such score.
6. A litigant cannot be permitted to approach the Court
raising the same issue (s) and/or concern which has
already been decided by the Court unless it invites a
recognized right within the parameters of the
Constitution. Once a litigation of such nature has
already been dismissed with categorical finding that it is
within the exclusive domain of the Government whether
to describe the spelling of "Cuttack" as "Katak", the
present Public Interest Litigation on the self-same cause
is not maintainable. It is one of such examples of
publicity interest litigation than having a serious concern
over the interest of public. The Court must frown upon
such fancy litigation which has a sinister motive of
gaining the popularity without having any element of a
public interest in it. Frequent rejection of the public
interest litigation filed by the petitioner has not
precluded him from approaching the Court again and
again so that at one point of time there may be a change
of opinion. The certainty and uniformity in law is the
hallmark of dispensation of justice. The Court should
not overlook the decision taken in the preceding
litigation unless the Court finds a significant and/or
radical changes in the scenario creating some rights to
be agitated using the tool of the public interest litigation.
7. We do not find that the Court can entertain such a public
interest litigation, more particularly, when an earlier
round of litigation could not yield any fruitful result. We
concur with the views expressed by the Court in the
earlier writ petition and do not find any element of taking
any different decision. Since the petitioner is more
interested in gaining some recognition, having remote
connection with the public interest, we, therefore,
dismiss the instant writ petition with cost of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees ten thousand) to be deposited by the petitioner
before the Member Secretary, Odisha State Legal
Services Authority, Juvenile Justice Fund, Cuttack within
a period of two weeks from date. In the event of such
deposit, the Odisha State Legal Services Authority
shall utilize the said amount for the welfare of the
children in need of care and protection. In default, it is
open for the Odisha State Legal Services Authority to
recover the said amount as permissible in law.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Bichi
Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 17-Apr-2026 14:51:22
