The Court declined to entertain the writ petition filed over a year after the impugned order, citing delay and laches, and relying on its earlier decision in State of Odisha v. Surama Manjari Das, confirmed by the Apex Court.
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. 20068 of 2017
State of Odisha and another
….. Petitioners
Mr. B. Mohanty, AGA
Vs.
Trilok Sundar Mohanty and another
….. Opposite Parties
Mr. S.K. Acharya, Advocate (Caveator)(OP No.1)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER
09.05.2024
Order No.
17.
This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORI SSA Priyajit Date: 13-May-2024 13:43:47
Page 1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed more than a year after the impugned order, suffering from delay and laches, should be entertained?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Odisha v. Surama Manjari DasRelied on
W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021
State of Odisha
Trilok Sundar Mohanty
B.R. Sarangi
G. Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
