Disposed

Kashinath Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC2 Aug 2017WP(C)/13277/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner farmer sought relief for defects in irrigation facility installed by a corporation. The court did not decide on merits but directed the petitioner to file a representation, and the opposite party to consider it after hearing, within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to file representation within 3 weeks; direction to opposite party to consider it, afford hearing opportunity, and communicate decision via Speed Post within 4 weeks.

Kashinath Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Specific Performance | Orissa HC (2017)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 13277 of 2017

¶2

2.8.2017

¶3

 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate.
 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a farmer and deposit
ed necessary amount with the Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. in 2013 for installation
of the bore well and making irrigation facility to his land. He further submits that the opp.
Parties have not taken any step to rectify the defect and as such the petitioner is suffering
huge loss. It is further submitted that the petitioner made representation to opp. Party no.2,
 but no action has been taken thereon. So he submits to give direction to the concerned author
ities to remove the defect and allow proper irrigation facility to the land of the petitioner.
 Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that if fresh representation is made wi
th all necessary documents, the matter will be decided in accordance with law.
 Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, since there is limite
d grievance and necessary fees has been deposited by the petitioner, without going to the meri
t of the case, the writ application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file
a representation with all documents and a certified copy of this order to opp. Party no.2 with
in a period of three weeks and opp. party no.2 shall consider the same in accordance with law
after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a period of four we
eks and communicate the same to the petitioner by Speed Post with A.D.
 Certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶4

 Dr.D.P.Choudhury, J.

¶5

Kashinath Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashinath Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seema Rekha Bhoi Vs State of Orissa

Group Captain Girish Ch.Mohanty Vs Union of India

Mihira Ray Vs Dist.Agriculture Officer-Cum-Krushi Sahayak

Ramesh Ch.Panda Vs State of Orissa

Tofan Sahu Vs State of Orissa

Ranjan Padal Vs State of Orissa