Disposed
Prasanta Mohan Jena v. State
Orissa HCWP(C)/13214/2008
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to quash a notice rescinding a contract. The Court held that the petitioner has an appropriate remedy of filing a reply to the notice.
What did the court decide?
Writ petition disposed; no order passed; interim order quashing the notice vacated; security deposited to continue.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
W.P.(C) No. 13214 of 2008
¶2
- 29.07.2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
¶3
- By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the notice and/or letter dated 14.08.2008, issued by opposite party no.3, rescinding the contract of the petitioner as per Annexure-5.
¶4
- Considering the submissions made and keeping in view the fact that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.9865 of 2006 and in RVWPET No.107 of 2007, which were disposed of vide order 21.08.2007 and 28.09.2007 respectively, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to file reply to the notice impugned. No order can be passed in this writ petition.
¶5
- Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
¶6
- Interim order dated 15.10.2008, passed in Misc. Case No.12875 of 2008 stands vacated.
¶7
- The property security, if any deposited by the petitioner before the Executive engineer, Balasore Irrigation Division, pursuant to the Interim order dated 15.10.2008 will continue till a decision on the reply to be filed by the petitioner is taken.
¶8
All connected Misc.Case(s)/I.A(s), if any is/are accordingly disposed of.
¶9
.…….......……………… ( K.S. Jhaveri ) Chief Justice
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
Opposite Party No. 3
Coram
AI extract
K.S. Jhaveri
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court