Dismissed

Sidharthini Tibrewal v. Palanning Member, Cda and Ors.

Orissa HC9 Aug 2021WP(C)/7913/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed one interim application and allowed another seeking amendment of pleadings due to a compromise decree. The main writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn with a liberty to bring developments to the appellate authority notice without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No. 13905 of 2020 dismissed; I.A. No. 10374 of 2021 allowed; Writ Petition disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to inform appellate authority.

Sidharthini Tibrewal Vs Palanning… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.C. No. 7913 OF 2017

¶3

Sidharthini Tibrewal and others

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. Planning Member, CDA and others Opp. Parties Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.1) Mr. J.N. Panda, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.2) Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel, (For Opp. Party No.5)

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA ORDER 09.08.2021

¶9

Order No.

¶10

I.A. No. 13905 of 2020

¶11

¶12

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

This is an application for amendment of the writ petition filed by the Petitioners.

¶14

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners does not want to press this application.

¶15

Accordingly, the I.A. stands dismissed.

¶16

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶17

W.P.(C) No.7913 of 2017

¶18

I.A. No. 10374 of 2021

¶19

1. None appears for the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 in spite of valid service of notice.

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

// 2 //

¶22

This is an application for amendment of the pleadings of the writ petition in view of the decree passed in Civil Suit No.62 of 2016, disposed of on the terms of compromise between the Petitioners and Opposite Party No.2, vide judgment and decree dated 30^th June, 2020 and 15^th July, 2020 respectively.

¶23

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the I.A is allowed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that he will file a consolidated writ petition by tomorrow (10.08.2021) serving copy thereof on learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. On filing of the consolidated writ petition, the same shall be taken on record.

¶25

The writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 31^st March, 2017 passed in Appeal Case No. 60 of 2015 filed under Section 18 of the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982 and is pending before the Special Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department-cum-Appellate Authority, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.5.

¶26

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that in view of the developments made in the meantime and C.S. No. 62 of 2016 has been disposed of on compromise, the Petitioners do not want to press this writ petition and pray for a liberty to bring the developments to the notice of the appellate authority for proper adjudication of the appeal.

¶27

Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties do not have any objection to the same.

¶28

Taking into consideration the submissions, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with a liberty to the Petitioners to bring the developments made in the meantime to

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

// 3 //

¶31

the notice of the appellate authority, namely, Special Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department-cum-Appellate Authority, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.5, and in that event, the Opposite Party No.5 shall do well to consider the same and adjudicate the appeal in accordance with law.

¶32

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the Petitioners.

¶33

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶34

bct

¶35

(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge

¶36

Page 3 of 3

Sidharthini Tibrewal v. Palanning Member, Cda and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidharthini Tibrewal v. Palanning Member, Cda and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Trailokyanath Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Anasuya Vs State

Simanchala Acharya Vs the State of Odisha

Umesh Ch.Giri Vs Krupasindhu Das andORS

Raghunath Nayak Vs Sub Collector, Balasore

Debendranath Mahana Vs the Senior Manager (P and a)