Remanded

Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited v. Premalata Mallick

Orissa HC20 Mar 2023WA/19/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a Single Judge order that disposed of a writ petition without addressing completed pleadings. The petition was restored to the Single Judge for hearing on merits on a listed date.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 06-12-2021 is set aside, writ petition restored for hearing on merits.

What the court decided

Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. No.19 of 2022

¶3

Odisha State Civil Supplies …. Corporation Ltd. Appellant

¶4

Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Premalata Mallick and Another …. Respondents

¶7

M/s. Jajati Kishore Mohanty, Advocate Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Addl. Govt. Advocate

¶8

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order No.

20.03.2023

1. This is a second round of litigation concerning the subject matter of the present appeal. In the earlier round, the learned Single Judge had by the impugned order dated 1^st August, 2019 allowed W.P.(C) No.13177 of 2019 and the connected writ petition on the very first day without opportunity to the present Appellant to file reply to the writ petition.

¶13

On that short ground, this Court had on 25^th October, 2021 set aside those orders and remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge for a fresh disposal after completion of pleadings in a time bound manner.

¶14

The Court is informed that pleadings were in fact completed within the time stipulated by this Court in the aforementioned order dated 25^th October, 2021.

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

However, when the writ petition was taken up for final hearing by the learned Single Judge it was again disposed of by the impugned short order dated 6^th December, 2021 which reads as under:

¶17

“This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶18

Heard Mr. A.K. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶19

It is agreed by learned counsel for the parties that the issue involved in this case is analogous to one involved in W.P.(C) No.19951 of 2020, which has been allowed by this Court vide detailed judgment dated 09.09.2021.

¶20

Therefore, in view of the reasons stated in the detailed judgment dated 09.09.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.19951 of 2020, this writ petition stands disposed of.”

¶21

At the outset, Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellant informs the Court that although in para 3 of the impugned order it is recorded that “it is agreed by learned counsel for the parties…” the counter affidavit filed by the present Appellant states to the contrary and there was no question of agreeing to the submissions of the counsel for the writ Petitioner i.e. Respondent herein. It is unable to be disputed by learned counsel for the Respondent herein that the impugned order does not deal with the pleadings in the writ petition which had been completed pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 25^th October, 2021.

¶22

Indeed, the Court finds that there is no discussion at all in the impugned order of the pleadings in the writ petition which was the

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

precise reason why the earlier order was set aside to enable the learned Single Judge to appreciate the stand of the respective parties in their pleadings apart from the submissions made in Court.

¶25

The Court is accordingly constrained to again set aside the impugned order dated 6^th December, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge and restore the writ petition to the file of the learned Single Judge for being heard on merits.

¶26

It is made clear that since the pleadings in the writ petition are already completed there will be no occasion now for the parties to add to those pleadings. The learned Single Judge in the roster Bench is requested to proceed with the hearing of the writ petition on merits, on the basis of the existing pleadings and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition will now be listed before the roster Bench of learned Single Judge on 11^th May, 2023.

¶27

The writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

¶28

(Dr. S. Muralidhar)

¶29

Chief Justice

¶30

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶31

S.K. Jena/Secy.

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited v. Premalata Mallick

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited v. Premalata Mallick

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rama Ch.Pradhan Vs State

Pravakar Dora Vs State of Orissa

Liquidator of M/S.Shree Parbati Power Loom Weavers Co-Op.Society Vs Madan Mohan Sahoo

Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation of Odisha Ltd. Vs Esskay Machinery Pvt. Ltd.

Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Vs Sukanti Biswal

Rungta Sons Pvt.Ltd Vs Union of India