The High Court of Orissa dismissed the present writ petition as not maintainable due to res judicata, having been filed on the self-same cause of action after a dismissed petition. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner failed to specify grounds under which the impugned rule was ultra vires and could not satisfy the Court on this lack of pleading.
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. 19097 of 2022
Urmila Bhuyan
Petitioner
Mr. Gokulananda Padhi, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha & Anr.
….. Opposite Parties
State Counsel
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER
22.08.2022
Order No.
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
1
Page 1 of 2
rule is declared to be ultra vires. As such, he has not pleaded any such ground in the writ petition save and except pleading in paragraph-17 that the petitioner in this writ petition challenges the ultra vires as to the non-application of mind regarding the clearance of word “offered” in Rule-27(iv) which violates Article 14 of the constitution of India and also affects the rights of the bidders. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to satisfy this Court with regard to what rule he intends to declare as ultra vires and, more so, he has not stated anything under what ground the rule can be declared as ultra vires.
petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Alok/Subha
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(G. SATAPATHY)
JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the ultra vires nature of Rule-27(iv) in the Orissa Minor and Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 is maintainable when the petitioner fails to specify grounds.
Whether a rule can be declared ultra vires under Article 14 without stating the specific ground for such challenge.
Whether a subsequent writ petition on the self-same cause of action after a prior dismissal is maintainable.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Urmila Bhuyan
State of Odisha
DR. B.R. SARANGI
G. SATAPATHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
