Dismissed
M/S Utkal Stone Works v. State of Odisha
Orissa HCWP(C)/19917/2020
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON’BLE…
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.
W.P.(C) No.19917 of 2020
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
Mr. S. Mohanty : For the Petitioner Advocate Mr. D. Mohanty, : For Opposite Parties Addl.Govt.Advocate (State of Orissa)
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the parties by Video
Conferencing mode.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-M/s Utkal Stone Works, represented through its attorney holderSabita Pothal, praying for a direction to the opposite parties to grant permission for operating its Unit during the operation and construction of NH-53.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to rely on clause-5 of the directions issued by the State Government vide order dated 06.08.2010 passed by the Government of Odisha, Department of Forest & Environment, published in the Orissa Gazette (Annexure-5), granting permission for temporary stone crusher exclusively for construction of NH/SH for the construction period. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the stone crusher of the petitioner was closed as it was falling within the 1 Km. from the
-2-
Municipality/N.A.C. area as notified by the Government of Orissa and not that for the construction of NH-53.
4. On a query made by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner does not point out as to when and to whom he made an application for such temporary permission. He is also not clear whether the order dated 06.08.2010 passed by the Government of Orissa, Department of Forest & Environment is still holding the field.
5. In our view, therefore, the writ petition cannot be held maintainable. It is for the petitioner to approach the opposite parties as per relevant rules for redressal of its grievance.
6. With the above limited observation, the writ petition stands dismissed as not maintainable.
As Lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel 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.
(Dr. B.R. Sarangi) (Mohammad Rafiq) Judge Chief Justice
MP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking permission to operate a stone crusher unit during highway construction is maintainable.
Whether the petitioner approached the opposite parties as per relevant rules for redressal of its grievance.
M/s Utkal Stone Works
Addl.Govt.Advocate (State of Orissa)
Mohammad Rafiq
B.R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court