A writ petition is disposed of after the petitioners, while conceding Rule 8, withdraw the matter with liberty to approach the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha for appropriate remedy. The court reserved no opinion on merits.
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.
W.P.(C) No.16109 of 2020
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the work order issued in respect of Plot No.25, under Khata No.3 in Deulapada Mouza for construction of Park i.e. Pramod Udyan.
3. After making arguments for some time, when confronted with Rule 8 of the Orissa High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010, whether the petitioners, who claim to challenge the action of the opposite parties/authorities and protect the land of deity Sri Gajeswar Mahadev, had approached the authorities concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the Commissioner of Endowments, Odishaopposite party no.3 by way of a comprehensive representation to seek the remedy under the law.
4. Considering the submissions made, it goes without saying that the Commissioner of Endowments, Odishaopposite party no.3 shall consider the representation filed by the petitioners and do the needful as warranted under
-2-
the law. It would be open to the petitioners to also request for appropriate interim relief which shall be considered by the said authority in his discretion in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
5. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
As lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the petitioners may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No. 4587, dated 25.03.2020.
(Mohammad Rafiq) Chief Justice
(Dr. B.R. Sarangi) Judge
MP
Petitioners
Opposite Party No.3
Mohammad Rafiq
Dr. B.R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
