This order dismisses a writ petition filed in 2014 challenging a 2001 order due to inordinate delay (laches) without a valid explanation, noting no notice was issued in the interim.
The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of laches.
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
WP(C) No.9068 of 2014
Grameswar Dev & Others …. Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
Collector, Puri & Others
…. Opposite Parties Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE M. S. RAMAN
ORDER 02.01.2023
Order No.
Misc. Case No. 16220 of 2017
WP(C) No.9068 of 2014
Page 1 of 2
Brahmagiri in OEA Case No. 812 of 1991. The Court finds that there is no valid explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition in 2014 to challenge an order of 2001. The explanation offered in para-9 of the writ petition that the Petitioner had no knowledge about the impugned order, it is too weak to merit acceptance.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(M. S. Raman)
Judge
Aks/Laxmikanta
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition filed in 2014 to challenge a 2001 order should be allowed despite an inordinate delay of eight years.
Whether the petitioner's explanation of lack of knowledge regarding the impugned order justifies the delay.
Grameswar Dev and Others
Collector, Puri and Others
M. S. Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
