The High Court set aside the impugned order allowing an ON shop license due to consideration of time-barred objections, violating a prior precedent. The writ was disposed of by remanding the matter for a fresh hearing and a reasoned order.
Impugned order set aside; matter remanded for fresh hearing and reasoned order by March 27, 2023.
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. 1387 of 2023
Sonalika Behera
…. Petitioner
Mr. Biraja Prasanna Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others
…. Opposite Parties Mr. Debakanta Mohanty Additional Government Advocate
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
Order No.
ORDER 09.03.2023 1. The counter affidavit filed on 6th March, 2023 be brought on record. The rejoinder affidavit has already been filed today by learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner.
Page 1 of 2
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
S. Behera
Page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether objections received beyond the statutory deadline for the proposed setup of an ON shop should be considered by the State.
Whether the State Department acted in violation of the decision in Gitanjali Sahoo v. State of Odisha in not accounting for the time bar.
Whether the impugned order permitting the project against the time-barred objection is liable to be set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gitanjali Sahoo v. State of OdishaDistinguished¶2
W.P.(C) No.30340 of 2020 (Gitanjali Sahoo v. State of Odisha)
Sonalika Behera
State of Odisha
G. Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
