[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Orissa Trust Of Technical Education vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 21 April, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.17691 of 2015 and W.P.(C) No.9883 of 2018
Orissa Trust of Technical Education .... Petitioners
and Training, Bhubaneswar and
another
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Millan Kanungo, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. S. R. Mohanty, Advocate
(In W.P.(C) No.17691 of 2015)
Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. S. S. Pradhan, Advocate
(In W.P.(C) No.9883 of 2018)
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Kailash Chandra Kar, Government Advocate
along with Ms. Biswabara Dash, ASC
Mr. Budhadev Routray, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. S.D. Routray, Advocate
Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Senior Advocate
Mr. Ramdas Achary, Advocate for NRHM
CORAM:
HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 21.04.2026
26. 1. The instant matters, which are clubbed together, have travelled
long to ensure due implementation of the Policy taken by the
Government in establishing Entrepreneurs Nodes under Public-Private
Partnership (PPP) module at the remotest corners of the State. The said
policy was undertaken by the State with an avowed object to cater
the need of the people living in the remote and difficult areas
connected with the district and other health sub-centres in order to
provide not only the medicines but also the medical advice.
2. Advertisement was made inviting applications from intending
entrepreneurs and the selection was made way back in the year 2014-
15. These entrepreneurs were operating and according to them, the
financial assistance was taken from various financial institutions, but
suddenly a letter was issued at the secretarial level to desist from
expanding the said policy by engaging other entrepreneurs or to
continue with the existing entrepreneurs. The said letter is the subject
matter of challenge at the behest of the several entrepreneurs
including the Orissa Trust of Technical Education and Training
(OTTET) being the prime PPP of the Government.
3. At the initial stage, the interim order was passed, which was
challenged before the apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5532 of 2019.
While disposing of the said appeal on July 15 th 2019, the apex Court
not only quashed and set aside the restraint order passed by the High
Court, which prevented the State from reviewing its policy and
formulating any appropriate policy to govern the telemedicine
centres, but also left it open to the State to conduct an appropriate
exercise as it deems fit for formulating and implementing an
appropriate policy. It was categorically observed that so far as the
OTTET is concerned, an assurance was given by the State by way of
an affidavit filed before the High Court and reiterated before the apex
Court that during the pendency of the writ petitions, the said OTTET
shall operate the nodes, which are currently in operation and in
addition thereto, 27 nodes for which the matters are pending, shall
also be permitted to continue.
4. There was no fetter put on the State to review the said policy
and/or to formulate any appropriate policy pending the instant writ
petitions before this Court. The matter, though directed to be
disposed of within a stipulated time, remained pending in the docket
of the Court for one reason or another or under one pretext or
another. Lastly, the direction was passed upon the State to file an
additional affidavit, which, in fact, has been filed and a specific stand
is taken by the learned Government Advocate that the centres, which
were operating under the said policy, have not been discontinued as
they continue to operate, but so far as the re-visitation and/or
formulation of an appropriate policy is concerned, unless the specific
instructions are solicited from the concerned authority, it would not
be proper to divulge the said fact before the Court.
5. All the Senior Counsels representing the respective writ
petitioners echoed that there is no continuance of the centres nor the
nodes set up under the PPP module nor the stipend/fees/remuneration
as fixed under the said policy have been disbursed and/or reimbursed
to the centres. It is, thus, submitted that despite a specific direction
passed by the apex Court in the said appeal as well as the subsequent
order passed by this Court, the State is clearly exposed itself to be
dealt with under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 but since the
policy is benefiting the common people, the Court must pass an
appropriate direction so that such benefit may continue to be
extended to the people of the State.
6. From the sequel of the facts as narrated hereinabove, though
there was an interdict in the interregnum for a brief period, the
moment the Supreme Court quashed and set aside the interim order,
the State must show alacrity in taking a prompt decision. It is
inconceivable that the State would sit over the issue for a
considerable period of time despite the liberty having granted by the
Supreme Court to either revisit or to make an appropriate policy in
this regard. The State must disclose as to whether any such exercise
has been undertaken in terms of the order passed by the apex Court.
It leads to another disputed arena when the State in unequivocal
terms took a stand that the centres are still operating. The State shall
also disclose to this Court whether there is a continuance of such
centres and whether the same are being allowed to operate or not.
The third issue relates to the disbursement/reimbursement of the fees/
remuneration/stipend as indicated in the said Policy. The State shall
also disclose whether they have implemented the said policy by
reimbursing/disbursing the same to the OTTET or a respective centre
as the case may be. This will further ensure whether the OTTET or
the nodes have been permitted to continue to operate in the State,
which in terms of the apex Court order could not have been stopped.
7. Since the Government Advocate has assured this Court to take
appropriate instructions ably assisted by Ms. Biswabara Dash,
learned Additional Standing Counsel, we, thus, grant adjournment
with the profound hope that the true and clear picture would be
disclosed on the next date of listing.
8. Bearing in mind that the matters are pending for more than a
decade before this Court and possibility of ascertaining certain facts
in course of the hearing, we, therefore, request the learned
Government Advocate to ensure the Chief Secretary of the State of
Odisha and Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health and Family
Welfare Department, Government of Odisha to remain present on the
next date on virtual mode.
9. List these matters along with W.P.(C) No.27566 of 2023 on 5th
May 2026, to be taken up as the first item.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
M. Panda
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by:
MRUTYUNJAYA
PANDA
Reason:
Authentication
Location: High
Court of Orissa,
Date: 27-Apr-2026
13:49:17
