The High Court dismissed an application seeking modification of a previous order. The court held that the IA was without merit because the writ petition only challenged the basis of levy, not the collection of fees in accordance with cited precedents.
Application for modification was dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.28893 of 2021
(Through hybrid mode)
Sukhpal Kaur …. Petitioner
Mr. B.S.Tripathy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others
…. Opposite Parties
Mr.Y.S.P. Babu, Addl. Govt. Advocate (for O.P.no.1) Mr.K.K.Mishra, Advocate (for O.P.nos.2 and 3)
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
ORDER 20.12.2021 I.A. no.18342 of 2021
Order No.
04.
Page 1 of 1
// 2 //
W.P.(C) no.34828 of 2021 (Dharanidhar Rout v. State of Odisha and others)
(Arindam Sinha) Judge
RKS
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether IA for modification can be allowed to quash a direction for payment of processing fee after the writ petition was already disposed of.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Santosh v. O.S.H.B.Distinguished¶1
Santosh v. O.S.H.B., 2020 (I) OLR-661
Budhimanta Dash v. Odisha State Housing BoardDistinguished¶1
Budhimanta Dash v. Odisha State Housing Board, order dated 9th July, 2021 in W.P.(C) no.6332 of 2021
Dharanidhar Rout v. State of Odisha and othersDistinguished¶1
Dharanidhar Rout v. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C) no.34828 of 2021
Sukhpal Kaur
State of Odisha
Arindam Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
