Dhaneswar Rout Vs State of Odisha

This application has been filed at the instance of the Opposite Party No.3 to recall the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by this Court in the aforesaid CMAPL.

¶14

Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.3, at the outset, contended that the order dated 05.03.2024 was passed thereby restoring W.P.(C) No.2196 of 2008 to file without providing an opportunity of hearing to the Opposite Party No.3.

¶15

On perusal of order dated 05.03.2024, it appears that the order was passed in presence of the counsel for the Petitioners as well as

¶16

Page 1 of 3.

¶17

learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. It is a fact that no notice was issued to the Opposite Party No.3 at the time of hearing of CMAPL No.32 of 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 05.03.2024 wherein the writ petition was restored to file on the application of the Interveners, who claim to have purchased the property i.e. the case land, from the Petitioner prior to his death. As such, they have successory right in the case land.

¶18

Although the writ petition in question was filed in the year 2008, the same was dismissed by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 17.11.2022, on the basis of the submission made at the bar that the sole Petitioner has died in the meantime and the coordinate Bench has observed that the writ petition does not survive. The order does not reveal as to whether any opportunity was given to substitute the legal heirs/person-in-interest of the Petitioner to continue with the writ petition.

¶19

Subsequently, an application was filed at the instance Interveners seeking revival of the writ petition on the ground that they have successor-in- interest in the case land, which was sold to them by the Writ Petitioner before dying. This Court, on a careful consideration of the submission made by the I.A. Petitioners as well as taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the State, vide order dated 05.03.2024, restores the writ petition to file subject to the Petitioners in the present CMAPL depositing a cost of Rs.1,000/- with the Advocates’ Welfare Fund of Orissa High Court Bar Association.

¶20

Moreover, the present I.A. has been filed at the instance of the Opposite Party No.3 also with the allegation that at the time of

¶21

Page 2 of 3.

¶22

passing the order dated 05.03.2024 and restoring the above noted writ petition, no opportunity was provided to the Opposite Party No.3. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.3 has also raised objections with regard to the locus standi of the Petitioners in the present CMAPL application.

¶23

Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.3, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the I.A. application by granting liberty to the Petitioners to raise the issue of locus standi of the CMAPL Petitioners by filing an application with a prayer for their substitution in place of the deceased Petitioner. In the event any such application is filed seeking substitution in the place of the deceased Writ Petitioner, then necessary opportunity shall be provided to Opposite Party No.3 to raise objection with regard to the locus standi of the CMAPL Petitioners. In view of the aforesaid observation, this Court is of the view that no prejudice has been caused to the Opposite Party No.3.

¶24