The petitioner challenged an administrative notice via writ petition. The High Court held such petitions are not entertained at that stage, directing the petitioner to raise defenses in the reply. The writ was disposed of and interim order vacated.
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 W.P (C ) No.11488 of 2016
Bijayanand Pradhan
Petitioner Mr. S.K. Mishra, Adv.
-versus-
State of Orissa & Others Opposite Parties
Mr. A. Tripathy,AGA
CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
04.12.2024
Order No.
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Since the Writ Petition has been filed against a notice, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. It is open for the petitioner to take all those stand that has been taken in the Writ Petition while filing the reply against the said notice. It is observed that the Committee shall take into consideration the reply and proceed with the matter in accordance with law, in which this Court expresses no opinion.
4. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
// 2 //
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge
sangita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticatoin of order Location: high court of orissa, cut tack Date: 23-Jul-2025 12:37:26
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition is maintainable when filed against an administrative notice rather than a final order?
Bijayanand Pradhan
State of Orissa & Others
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
