Dismissed

Bimalendu Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC19 Aug 2020WP(C)/17320/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in PIL CWP No. 17320 of 2020 dismissed a petition seeking a direction to the State Government to enact a new Apartment Ownership Act and frame Rules within four weeks. The Single Judge held the Court cannot command the State to enact legislation, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for issuing a direction to the State Government to enact a new Act and frame Rules was dismissed.

Bimalendu Pradhan Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 17320 of 2020

¶2

19.08.2020

¶3

Heard Mr. Mohit Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, learned Advocate General with Mr. M.S. Sahoo, learned Addl. Government Advocate on behalf of the State-opposite parties by Video Conferencing mode.

¶4

This writ petition, in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, has been filed for issuance of a direction to the State Government to frame and notify a new Odisha Apartment Ownership Act, 2019 and necessary Rules thereunder, as undertaken by them in their order dated 11.11.2019, within a period of four weeks.

¶5

The petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13032 of 2019 before this Court seeking issuance of a direction to the State Government for framing of the relevant rules for enforcement of Odisha Apartment Ownership (Amendment) Act, 2015, wherein this Court by order dated 05.08.2019 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the opposite parties to consider representation of the petitioner. The opposite parties, vide their order dated 11.11.2019 disposed of the said representation of the petitioner observing that ‘keeping in view the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Odisha Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rules, 2017 and the present scenario, urgent steps are being taken to formulate a new Odisha Apartment Ownership Act, 2019 in order to address all the issues as emerged in the present scenario’.

¶6

-2-

¶7

It is submitted by the learned Advocate General that the Government is already in seisin over the matter and taking steps to do the needful.

¶8

In our considered view, this Court cannot command the State Government by issuing a writ of mandamus to enact a new Act and frame a new Rules within a specific period, especially during this ongoing pandemic COVID-19 situation, also when the State Government is already aware of the situation. Writ petition with such a prayer cannot be entertained.

¶9

This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶10

No order as to costs.

¶11

As lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the parties 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.

¶12

¶13

(Mohammad Rafiq) Chief Justice

¶14

(Dr. B.R. Sarangi) Judge

Bimalendu Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bimalendu Pradhan 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

Pradeep Kumar Sahu Vs District and Sessions Judge, Angul

Arabinda Senapati Vs State of Odisha

Kasiram Kathar Vs State of Odisha

Shree Jagannath Sequrity Service Vs Union of India

Krushna Chandra Naik Vs State of Odisha

General Manager East Coast Railway Vs Surendra Jal