Disposed

Anjan Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC21 Sept 2023WP(C)/20375/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage without expressing an opinion on merits. It directed the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's pending representation regarding the change of the college's nomenclature within six weeks and communicate the reasoned decision within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Authority to consider the petitioner's request for renaming the college within six weeks and communicate a reasoned decision within two weeks.

Anjan Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.20375 of 2023

¶3

Anjan Kumar Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. T.K. Nayak, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha and others

¶6

Opp. Parties Mr. P.C. Das, A.S.C.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA ORDER

Order No.

21.09.2023

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:-

¶15

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, call for the records, and after hearing the parties, issue writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ(s)/Direction(s) or orders directing the Opp. Parties to change the name/nomenclature of the College from ‘Lalita Shiv Shankar +2 College, Motto’ to ‘Motto Mahavidyalaya, Motto’, in the District of Bhadrak taking into Governing Body Resolution No.44 dtd. 10.12.1993 as well as the letter No.57965 dtd. 28.10.1995 issued by the Government of Odisha, Higher Education Department within a stipulated period.

¶16

And/or pass such other order/orders,

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

direction/directions as deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶19

It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that although the Petitioner has filed representation under Annexure-6 Series before the Opposite Party No.3, but the same is still pending before the said Opposite Party and the said Opposite Party has not taken any decision as of now.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State submits that he has no objection, if a direction is given to the authority concerned to consider the representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶21

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court disposes of the writ petition at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-6 Series taking into consideration Annexure-7 in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is needless to mention here that the representation of the Petitioner shall be considered and disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Any decision so taken on the said representation shall be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Debasis Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC CUTTACK Date: 27-Sep-2023 19:30:05

Anjan Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjan Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Muduli Vs State of Odisha

Ananta Gangai Vs State of Odisha

Ananda Dash Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Patitapaban Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Sukanta Marthi Vs State of Odisha

Birabara Behera Vs State of Odisha