High CourtsDivision Bench(2023) 02 OHC CK 0104

Debi Prasad Sahoo And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others

Orissa High Court · Decided on 14 February 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ · M.S.Raman, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No.3330 Of 2013

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 324 words

I.A.No. 1844 of 2023

1.

The present application by Sri Debi Prasad Sahoo, i.e., the Petitioners seeks modification of the order passed by this Court on 11th January, 2023. It is submitted that a statement was made by Opposite Party No.5 that O.A. No.86 of 2008 was pending before the Commissioner of Endowments and in fact, it was quashed by this Court by an order dated 17th July, 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 712 of 2009. It is stated that only O.A. No. 3 of 2013 is pending before the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha. It is accordingly prayed that while taking note of the above facts, this Court should also allow the present Petitioners to intervene in the above O.A. and continue the interim order that was prevailing.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.5 has produced before this Court a copy of an Order dated 21st September, 2016 passed by the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No(s). 7272 of 2013 (State of Orissa v. Urmila Builder P. Ltd) where the order dated 17th July, 2009 of this Court has been set aside and O.A. No. 86 of 2008 has been revived before the Commissioner of Endowments. This fact was perhaps not known to the present Applicants/Petitioners. It is now evident that O.A. No.86 of 2008 is in indeed pending before the Commissioner of Endowments as O.A. No. 03 of 2013. The only modification therefore of the order dated 11th January, 2023 would be that both the aforementioned O.As., i.e., O.A. No. 86 of 2008 and O.A. 03 of 2013 will now be disposed of by the Commissioner of Endowments in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.5 further points out that in O.A. No. 86 of 2008, there is already a status quo order passed by the Commissioner of Endowments which is continuing.

3.

The remaining part of the said order does not require any further modification.

………………………………….