Dismissed

Bipin Bihari Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Nov 2021WP(C)/4125/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order refusing to add them as parties to a fresh consideration of a prior matter, alleging denial of hearing. The Court found no actionable grievance as the omission was likely conscious, suggesting review of the parent order instead.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of without granting relief, with the Court suggesting the petitioners apply for review of the earlier order.

Bipin Bihari Behera Vs State of Odisha — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 4125 of 2021 (Through Hybrid Mode)

¶3

….. Petitioners Bipin Bihari Behera & Ors.

¶4

Mr. S. S. Rao, Advocate

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Odisha & Ors. ….. Opposite Parties Mr.A.K.Sharma, AGA

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

ORDER

03.11.2021

Order No.

1. Mr. Rao, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, the result of consideration by order dated 13^th November, 2020 made by Skill Development and Technical Education Department, Government of Odisha be set aside for fresh consideration after hearing his clients. They wanted to intervene in the writ petition (W.P.(C) No.29007 of 2019), wherein order dated 28^th September, 2020, disposing of it was made, pursuant to which the consideration.

¶12

2. Mr. Bose and Mr. Routray, learned advocates appear respectively on behalf of opposite party nos.6 and 7 while Mr. Sharma, learned advocate appears on behalf of State.

¶13

Page 1 of 2

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

Opposite party nos.6 and 7 both object on the ground of maintainability. They submit, petitioners do not have locus standi.

¶16

3. Mr. Rao draws attention to I.A. no.1187 of 2020 made in said writ petition to show, his clients wanted to intervene. On query from Court he submits, there was no order made to add clients as parties but in order dated 28^th September, 2020 of disposal, there is mention in the directions that the consideration is to be after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶17

This writ petition appears to be for enforcement of petitioners’ perceived right to participate in the hearing for consideration pursuant to directions under order 28^th September, 2020 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in said writ petition. There was direction, inter alia, for consideration after hearing the parties. This Court can only interpret omission by the Division Bench to add petitioners as a conscious act. In event petitioners feel otherwise they are at liberty to apply for review of said order dated 28^th September, 2020, to the Division Bench. As things stand, this Court does not find petitioners to have a grievance on not being allowed to participate in the consideration resulting

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

// 3 //

¶20

in said order dated 13^th November, 2020. Mr. Rao submits, his clients were permitted on leave granted under section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to institute a suit. He also submits, petition for revision in connection therewith is pending.

¶21

With the above, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶22

Prasant

¶23

(Arindam Sinha)
Judge

¶24

Page 3 of 3

Bipin Bihari Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipin Bihari Behera 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Odisha Sales Represe Vs State and Ors.

M/S. Ag and Co-Mkepl-Gajv Vs Mcl,Sambalpur

M/S.Prakash Roadlines Corporation Ltd. Vs Chairman-Cum-Md,Mcf Ltd.

Jagabandhu Juanga Vs State of Orissa

M/S.Sainik Mining and Allied Services Ltd. Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.

M/S.Sainik Mining and Allied Services Ltd. Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.