Dismissed

Biswa Bihari Mandhata v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Dec 2022WP(C)/29002/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of a writ petition challenging the vacation of official quarters. Relying on the fact that alternative quarters were allotted to the petitioners to avoid project delays, the court declined to entertain the petition but directed an immediate shift to the new quarters.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the writ petition with an observation to shift to the newly allotted quarters immediately.

Biswa Bihari Mandhata Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) NO. 29002 OF 2022 Biswa Bihari Mandhata and others ....

¶3

.... Petitioners

¶4

Mr. B.S. Das, Advocate -versus-

¶5

State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

12.12.2022

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

The Petitioners in this writ petition seek to assail the letter dated 29^th August, 2022 (Annexure-5 series) and subsequent letter dated 11^th October, 2022 (Annexure-3 series) to vacate the official quarters allotted in their favour.

¶14

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on instruction, submits that for expansion of the Court Complex at Bhubaneswar, the office of Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and SubCollector, Bhubaneswar has been shifted. He further submits that the land over which the official quarters allotted in favour of the Petitioners exist has already been allotted for construction of new building of the office of Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar on 2^nd December, 2019. If the Petitioners occupy the official quarters so allotted, the project for construction of new building of the office of Tahasildar as well as Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar will be delayed. However, all the Petitioners have been allotted with alternative quarters.

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioners accepting such submission contends that the quarters so allotted are far away from the existing quarters. Hence, the Petitioners will be facing difficulty in the mid-academic session.

¶18

In view of rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, since the Petitioners have been allotted with alternative quarters, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

¶19

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the Petitioners should shift to the newly allotted quarters immediately.

¶20

bks

¶21

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge

¶22

Page 2 of 2

Biswa Bihari Mandhata v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biswa Bihari Mandhata 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Mahakur Vs Collector, Sambalpur

Subrat Routray Vs Sarmistha Priyadarsini Pal @ Routray

Sana Bag Vs Rohita Bagarty

Pravakar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Mahendra Kumar Panda Vs Rajendra Kumar Panda

Laxmidhar Sahoo Vs Ashok Kumar Baral