The High Court of Oriissa dismissed the writ petition as the petitioner's counsel had received no instructions. Liberty was granted to file a fresh petition if cause of action subsists.
Liberty to file a fresh petition if cause of action subsists.
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)(TAC) No.55 of 2016
Prasanta Kumar Pati …. Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.
…. Opposite Parties
CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER 14.07.2022
Order No 11. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he has received no instruction from his client.
3. Accordingly, the W.P.C.(TAC) is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a fresh petition, if any cause of action still subsists.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge
Sneha
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be allowed when the petitioner has received no instruction from his solicitor.
Prasanta Kumar Pati
State of Odisha & Ors.
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
