Sangram Keshari Dash v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Feb 2024WP(C)/1020/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) No.1020 of 2023, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, decided 20.02.2024 by Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra; writ petition disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file a better writ petition with better particulars; impugned rejection order dated 24.11.2022 by Sub-Collector, Jajpur (Licensing Authority) at Annexure-1, passed on direction of Coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No.31104 of 2022; appeal under Clause 19 of the O.P.D.S.(Control) Order 2016 dismissed by Appellate Authority; petitioner conceded non-disclosure/non-challenge of the orders; no merits adjudication; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of the Writ Petition with liberty to file a better Writ Petition with better particulars. ¶¶14

Sangram Keshari Dash Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.1020 of 2023

¶3

Sangram Keshari Dash …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. B. Dalai, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. A. Behera, Additional Standing Counsel

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ORDER 20.02.2024

¶10

Order No.

¶11

05.

¶12

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Learned Counsel for the parties are present. 3. Mr. Behera, Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite parties hands up a copy of instruction received, wherefrom it is ascertained that being directed by the Coordinate bench in W.P.(C) No.31104 of 2022, the Licensing Authority i.e. SubCollector, Jajpur, passed the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 as at Annexure-1 and being aggrieved by the said order, the present Petitioner preferred an Appeal in terms of Clause 19 of the O.P.D.S.(Control) Order 2016 and the Appellate Authority also dismissed the said Appeal confirming the order passed by the Licensing Authority i.e. Sub-Collector, Jajpur. Copy of

¶13

instruction filed along with a Memo by the learned Counsel for the State be kept on record. 4. A query being made by the court, Mr. Dalai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, inadvertently, due to lack of instruction, the said rejection order passed by the Sub-Collector, Jajpur, so also confirming order passed by the Appellate Authority have neither been disclosed in the Writ Petition nor any prayer has been made therein to set aside the said orders. Accordingly, he prays to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to file a better Writ Petition with better particulars. He files a memo to the said effect. The same be kept on record.

¶14

5. In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Writ Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.

¶15

Kanhu

¶16

(S. K. Mishra) Judge

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 21-Feb-2024 12:23:41

¶19

Page 2 of 2

Sangram Keshari Dash v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangram Keshari Dash v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Khamurai Vs State and Ors.

Uco Bank, Sambalpur Vs Sangram Keshari Khuntia

State Vs Bhaskar Rout

Jharana Pramanik Vs Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Balasore

Bihari Lal Mishra Vs the Collector,Balangir

Basanta Kumar Nayak Vs State of Orissa