Sanjaya Kumar Nayak vs Arabinda Agarwal
2026 Latest Caselaw 108 Ori

Orissa High Court

Sanjaya Kumar Nayak vs Arabinda Agarwal on 7 January, 2026

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                    CONTC No.603 of 2024

            Sanjaya Kumar Nayak                          ....          Petitioner
                                                                 Represented by

                                                        Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate

                                        -Versus-
            Arabinda Agarwal, I.A.S., & Others            ....       Opp. Parties
                                                                 Represented by

                                                                   Mr. A. Sethy,
                                                    Additional Standing Counsel
                   CORAM:
                        JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                                            ORDER

07.01.2026 Order No.

05. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. . 2. Mr. Sethy, learned Additional Standing Counsel has produced a copy of the letter dated 26.11.2025 written by the Legal Consultant of the Department of Higher Education addressed to the Advocate General of Odisha. In the said letter it is basically stated that the petitioner has preferred a SLP and the Advocate General has been requested to apprise this Court with prayer to await the outcome of the said SLP. Admittedly, the State has not challenged the judgment passed by this Court.

3. It is stated at the bar that the SLP is against a different order passed by a Division Bench, wherein it was held that a writ appeal is maintainable against an order passed in FAO. It is further stated that a larger Bench of the Court has since held that the writ appeal is not maintainable.

4. It is fairly submitted by Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the order passed by the larger Bench the SLP has become practically infructuous. Be that as it may, when the State has not challenged the judgment passed by this Court before any forum, it cannot take the plea of pendency of the SLP filed by the petitioner.

5. This Court grants five days' time to the Department to comply with the judgment of this Court, failing which appropriate orders shall be passed in the case.

6. List this matter on 12th January, 2026.

(Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

Puspanjali

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.