Allowed

Anushrav Gantayat v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC19 Dec 2023WP(C)/21215/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows an interim application filed by the petitioner seeking correction of typographical errors and clerical mistakes in a judgment dated 19th December, 2023 regarding a writ petition concerning PwD/RPwD Act provisions.

What did the court decide?

The corrections sought in I.A. No.292 of 2024 were allowed and an order was passed to carry out the necessary corrections in the judgment dated 19th December, 2023.

Anushrav Gantayat 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.21215 of 2019

¶3

Anushrav Gantayat

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. P.K. Sinha, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. B. Panigrahi, ASC (for O.P. Nos. 1 to 6)

¶10

Order No.

¶11

14.

¶12

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶13

ORDER
08.01.2024
I.A. No.292 of 2024

¶14

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

Heard learned Counsel for the Parties.

¶16

This application has been filed by the Petitioner for correction of the judgment dated 19^th December, 2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.21215 of 2019, as detailed below:

¶17

(i) In the 1^st line of page 6, the date “02.04.2015” be substituted by the date “02.04.2019”.

¶18

(ii) In paragraph-15 at 1^st line of the judgment at page 25, the word “PwD Act” be substituted by the word “RPwD Act”.

¶19

(iii) In paragraph-25 at 8^th line the word “Blind” be substituted by the word “Blind/Low vision”. (iv) In paragraph-28 at 2^nd line of the judgment, the word “Blind” be substituted by the word “Blind/Low vision”.

¶20

(v) In paragraph-34 at 2^nd line of the judgment at page 47, the date “02.04.2019” be substituted by the date “19.12.2018”.

¶21

Page 1 of 2

¶22

(vi) In paragraph 34 at 9^th line of the judgment at page 48, the line “Hence, this Court of further view” be substituted by the line “Hence, this Court is of further view”.

¶23

Mr. Panigrahi, learned ASC for the State Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 6 submits, he has no objection to the prayer made in this I.A., the corrections sought for being formal in nature. Considering the averments made in the Application, the mistakes pointed out therein being minor omissions and typographical errors, the Application is allowed and disposed of.

¶24

Accordingly, necessary corrections be carried out in the judgment dated 19^th December, 2023, as proposed in the I.A. The rest part of the judgment dated 19^th December, 2023 shall remain unaltered.

¶25

The corrected judgment be uploaded in place of existing judgment, which is in the website of this Court.

¶26

(S.K. MISHRA)

¶27

padma

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: PADMA CHARAN DASH Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUT TACK Date: 12-Jan-2024 17:27:21

¶31

Page 2 of 2

Anushrav Gantayat v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anushrav Gantayat v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manabbadi Self-Help Vs State and Ors.

M/S.Mahavir Industries Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

Sanghamitra Sahoo Vs the Divisional Manager, Nicl.

Bikash Kumar Naik Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Khurda

Budheswara Self Help Group, Puri Vs State of Odisha

Kishore Ch.Panda Vs State of Orissa