Disposed¶24

State of Odisha v. Junej Kumar Sethi

Orissa HC3 Jul 2024WA/1807/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Odisha HC (03.07.2024) disposes writ appeal W.A. No.1807 of 2022 (State of Odisha and others v. Junej Kumar Sethi) in terms of State of Odisha & others v. Bindusagar Samantray, W.A. No.810 of 2021 and batch (decided 25.09.2023); 69-day filing delay condoned (I.A. No.4247 of 2022); no interference with Single Judge order dated 20.09.2022 in WPC(OAPC) No.80 of 2018; Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Odisha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684 noted as covering the respondent's case.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 69 days in filing the writ appeal condoned and I.A. No.4247 of 2022 allowed; writ appeal disposed of in terms of State of Odisha & others v. Bindusagar Samantray (supra) without interference with the Single Judge's order dated 20.09.2022 in WPC(OAPC) No.80 of 2018; interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶24

State of Odisha Vs Junej Kumar Sethi — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 69 days in preferring the intra-Court writ appeal (W.A. No.1807 of 2022) should be condoned. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The delay of 69 days in filing the present writ appeal stands condoned, the sole contesting respondent having no objection to the prayer for condonation of delay; accordingly, the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No.4247 of 2022) is allowed.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

No reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 20.09.2022 passed in WPC(OAPC) No.80 of 2018, as it was passed in the presence of learned State counsel after having taken note of the submissions advanced on behalf of the State.

¶22

Key takeaways

As learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that the case of the sole respondent (writ petitioner) is covered by the coordinate-Bench decision in State of Odisha & others v. Bindusagar Samantray (W.A. No.810 of 2021 and batch, decided 25.09.2023) and by the Supreme Court decision in Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Odisha (2022 SCC OnLine SC 684), the present writ appeal stands disposed of in terms of this Court's decision in State of Odisha & others v. Bindusagar Samantray (supra).ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (W.A. No.1807 of 2022, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, decided 03.07.2024) by State of Odisha and others against the learned Single Judge's order dated 20.09.2022 in WPC(OAPC) No.80 of 2018 concerning respondent Junej Kumar Sethi. The delay of 69 days in preferring the intra-Court appeal was condoned, the sole contesting respondent raising no objection (I.A. No.4247 of 2022 allowed). The Division Bench saw no reason to interfere, the impugned order having been passed in the presence of learned State counsel after taking note of the submissions advanced on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the parties did not dispute that the respondent's case was covered by the coordinate-Bench decision in State of Odisha & others v. Bindusagar Samantray (W.A. No.810 of 2021 and batch, rendered 25.09.2023) as well as by the Supreme Court's decision in Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Odisha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684. The writ appeal stood disposed of in terms of the Bindusagar Samantray decision; interlocutory applications, if any, stood disposed of. (Coram: Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Chief Justice and Savitri Ratho, Judge.)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. No. 1807 of 2022

¶3

State of Odisha and others

¶4

…. Appellants

¶5

Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Additional Government Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. Junej Kumar Sethi Respondent Mr. Avijit Patnaik, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

Order No.

03.07.2024

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶15

I.A. No.4247 of 2022

¶16

This application has been filed by the applicants/appellants seeking condonation of delay of 69 days in preferring the present intra-Court appeal.

¶17

For the reasons stated therein and as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole contesting respondent does not have any objection to the prayer for condonation of delay, the delay of 69 days in filing the present writ appeal stands condoned.

¶18

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed.

¶19

W.A. No.1807 of 2022

¶20

Heard Mr. M.K. Khuntia, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants-State and Mr. Avijit Patnaik, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶21

Page 1 of 2

¶22

In view of what has been observed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 20.09.2022 passed in WPC(OAPC) No.80 of 2018, we see no reason to interfere as the order was passed in the presence of learned State counsel after having taken note of the submissions advanced on behalf of the State.

¶23

Learned counsel representing the parties do not dispute that the case of the sole respondent (writ petitioner) is covered by the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in case of State of Odisha & others v. Bindusagar Samantray rendered on 25.09.2023 in W.A. No.810 of 2021 and batch as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Odisha 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684 .

¶24

In such view of the matter, the present writ appeal stands disposed of in terms of this Court’s decision in case of State of Odisha & others v. Bindusagar Samantray ( supra ).

¶25

Interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶26

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice

¶27

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶28

S. Behera

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Page 2 of 2

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Jul-2024 14:15:24

State of Odisha v. Junej Kumar Sethi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Odisha v. Junej Kumar Sethi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Ch. Swain Vs Lt.Col.Sanjay K.Josi

State Vs Surendra Ku.Nayak

Pravati Behera Vs Anil Ku.Samal

Mamata Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Nucleus Institute of Medical Science Vs Commissioner-Cum-Secy, Dept. of Health and Family Welfare

Rajat Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha