Disposed

Bhagaban @ Kalandi Behera v. Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha

Orissa HC5 Apr 2021WP(C)/399/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Palinki Apatia barred from duty after illness, complains his representation was ignored. Court admits Writ Petition as a nullity to ensure the Executive Officer considers the pending representation within two months by a speaking order, without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed opposite party no.3 to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation within two months by a speaking order.

Bhagaban @ Kalandi Behera Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.399 of 2021

¶2

Present: Shri S.K. Mishra,J.

¶3

Miss Savitri Ratho,J.

¶4

Bhagaban @ Kalandi Behera

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

The Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar & others

¶8

… Opp. Parties

¶9

For the petitioner … Bhagaban Mohanty, Advocate For the opp. party nos.1 & 2 … Mr. A.K. Nath, Ms. Pratyusha Naidu Advocates.

¶10

For opposite party no.3 … Mr. A.R. Dash, Advocate

¶11

02. 05.04.2021

¶12

The case is taken up through video conferencing

¶13

mode.

¶14

Heard Mr. Bhagaban Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Nath, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2. We have also heard Mr. A.R. Dash, learned counsel on behalf of the opposite party no.3.

¶15

The grievance of the petitioner is that his father and after him, the petitioner was performing seva puja of Lord Lingaraj as Palinki Apatia for more than 60 years. While performing as such, the petitioner suffered from illness for which he was under treatment of doctor and could not perform seva puja for some time. After recovery from illness, he was not allowed to perform seva puja. In that regard, he has made a representation to the Executive Officer, Lord Lingaraj Temple,

¶16

¶17

Bhubaneswar (opposite party no.3) on 17.08.2020 requesting him to allow the petitioner to join in his duty as Palinki Apatia of Lord Lingaraj, but till date his representation is not being considered. It is submitted that the grievance of the petitioner will be redressed if a direction is issued to opposite party no.3 to consider the representation.

¶18

Keeping in view the nature of grievance and the relief claimed, we dispose of the writ application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, directing opposite party no.3 to consider and dispose of the representation dated 17.08.2020 (Annexure-4), stated to have been filed and pending before him, within a period of two months from the date of production of downloaded copy of this order from the website of this Court along with copy of the brief, by a speaking order.

¶19

The petitioner is directed to submit a copy of the writ application along with a downloaded copy of this order before the opposite party no.3 within a period of fifteen days hence.

¶20

As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are continuing, the learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25^th March, 2020.

¶21

…………………… S.K. Mishra,J.

¶22

……………………… Savitri Ratho,J.

¶23

pcd

¶24

Bhagaban @ Kalandi Behera v. Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagaban @ Kalandi Behera v. Commissioner of Endowments, 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

Executive Officer, Nayagarh Municipality Vs State of Odisha

Pabitra Sahoo Vs State

Bati Mani Vs Surendra Kumar

Niranjan Bhoi Vs Surendra Kumar

Nilabara @ Nilambar Pujhari Vs Surendra Kumar

Vimbadhar @ Bimbadhar Pujhari Vs Surendra Kumar