Disposed
Shym Sundar Gauda v. D.T.M.,O.S.R.T.C.
Orissa HCOJC/9081/1999
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
of 1999 21.04.2016 Heard Mr. G.C. Mohapatra…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
OJC No. 9081 of 1999
21.04.2016 Heard Mr. G.C. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Pattnaik, l
earned counsel for the opposite party.
The petitioner files this application seeking to quash Annexure-4 by which direction
has been given for payment of Rs.4008/- which is ten times and the same shall be recovered fro
m his dues for fare of four passengers from Cuttack to Rayagada.
Mr. G.C. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner states that without following
due procedure of law, recovery has been made. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this C
ourt by filing the present writ application.
Mr. S.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the opposite party states that while entertain
ing this application, though this Court issued notice to the opposite parties, no interim orde
r has been passed in the matter and as such in the meantime the petitioner has retired from se
rvice and received all the financial benefits.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, sin
ce the petitioner has already retired from service and received all the financial benefits, th
e relief claim in the writ application has become infructuous with efflux of time.
Accordingly, the writ application stands disposed of.
Dr. B.R. Sarangi,J.
Petitioner
Opposite party
Dr. B.R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court