Disposed

Jogendra Sahoo v. Dg,Archaeological

Orissa HC24 Jul 2023WP(C)/11910/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging a demarcation notice. The Court observed a dispute regarding a submitted show-cause representation. It granted liberty to the petitioners to file a representation to the authority for a final hearing, directing the authority to complete it within six weeks without coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit a representation to opposite party No.2; direction to authority to examine and pass a final order within six weeks without coercive action.

Jogendra Sahoo Vs Dg,Archaeological — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.11910 of 2013

¶3

Jogendra Sahoo and Another

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. S. Pattanaik, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India & Others

¶8

…. Opposite parties

¶9

Mr. Babu, learned AGA Mr. P.S. Nayak, Senior panel counsel CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

Order No.

24.07.2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Nayak, learned Senior panel counsel appearing for opposite party No.1, 2 and 5 besides Mr. Babu, learned AGA for the State.

¶15

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned notice dated 1^st May, 2013 under Annexure-6 and also to declare the action for demarcation to be illegal on the grounds stated therein.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners had approached opposite party No.5 with a show cause filed in response to a notice dated 2^nd November, 2012, a copy which is as at Annexure-5 but the same was not considered followed by Annexure-6 dated 1^st May, 2013 which is, therefore, not in accordance with law and hence, liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

Mr. Nayak, learned Senior panel counsel for opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 5 submits that no show cause was ever submitted by the petitioners which is presently claimed and in so far as Annexure5 is concerned, it does not bear any endorsement of the authority concerned or any postal receipt produced showing that the same was dispatched to opposite party No.5. So, therefore, Mr. Nayak submits that in absence of any such reply received from the petitioners responding to Annexure-4, no illegality has been committed with the issuance of Annexure-6 since the alleged construction was in violence of Rule 38(2) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

¶19

Having regard to above facts and submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and since the petitioners are inclined to appear and respond and claimed to have filed show cause in the year 2013 which is however denied by the other side, the Court is of the considered view that they should be provided an opportunity of hearing with the liberty to submit a representation addressed to opposite party No.2 for a final decision in that regard.

¶20

6. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶21

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the liberty allowed in favour of the petitioners to submit a representation to opposite party No.2 which shall be filed within a fortnight from today and in the event, the same is received, the authority concerned shall examine it and pass a final order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity hearing to the parties and dispose it of as soon as possible preferably within a period of next six weeks and till such time, not to take any coercive action against them.

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

A certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

¶24

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶25

Tudu

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 25-Jul-2023 16:53:58

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Jogendra Sahoo v. Dg,Archaeological

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jogendra Sahoo v. Dg,Archaeological

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagannatha Bhatara Vs State of Odisha

Ghanashyam Jena Vs State of Odisha

Pradip Kumar Behera Vs Pradeep Kumar Sahoo, Tahasildar, Buddha Nagar, Bbsr

Kamala Das Vs Govind Pr.Bhomrajka

Suba Duria Vs State of Odisha

Bajranglal Agarwalla Vs Radheshyam Singhal