Dismissed

Bijaya Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Nov 2020WP(C)/30493/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge disposed of the writ petition after noting that the earlier order directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation. The Court held that no need arose to scrutinize the suppression of material fact allegation, but observed the petitioner could be heard by the competent authority in the subsequent representation proceeding.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bijaya Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

C.M.P. No.1360 of 2015 W.P.(C) No.30493 of 2020

¶2

2 11.11.2020

¶3

This matter is taken up through Video conferencing. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel.

¶4

This Court finds for the disposal of W.P.(C).No.19020 of 2020,this Court by order dated 28.08.2020 simply directed as follows:

¶5

“This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department. Considering the limited nature of request involved in this matter, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the opposite party nos.1 and 6 to consider the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-3, in accordance with law taking into account the grounds raised in the writ petition as well as the documents taken in support of the same within a period of one and half months from the date of communication of this order as well as copy of the writ petition by the petitioner.

¶6

As lockdown period is continuing for Covid-19, learned counsel for the petitioner 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.”

¶7

Above goes to make it clear that there is simple direction for consideration of the representation of the petitioner therein at Annexure-3 in accordance with law. For this reason, this Court finds the allegation of the petitioner in the present writ petition that order has been obtained in suppression of material fact does not need to be considered.

¶8

Be that as it may, if the petitioner in the writ petition is interested to be heard in consideration of the representation at Annexure-3 in the disposed of writ petition and the Annexure-3 yet to be disposed of, this Court simply observes in the event the direction dated 28.08.2020 is yet to be complied, petitioner in the writ petition may also be heard by the competent authority in the disposal of Annexure-3 indicated hereinabove.

¶9

The writ petition stands disposed of with the simple observation.

¶10

-2-

¶11

Petitioner 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 Notification No.4587 dated 25.3.2020.

¶12

……………………………. sks BISWANATH RATH,J

Bijaya Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bijaya Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhilabihari Pradhan Vs Regr,Co-Op.Societies

Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs State of Orissa

Sadasiva Panda Vs O.P.G.C.Ltd.

Madhusudan Naik Vs State of Odisha

Prasanna Kumar Rath Vs State of Orissa

Ananta Kishore Majhi Vs State of Odisha