Disposed¶19

Sanjay Kumar Pujhari v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC8 Nov 2024WP(C)/4091/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sanjay Kumar Pujhari vs State of Odisha & Ors.; WP(C) No. 4091 of 2018; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy; order dated 08.11.2024; challenge to panel list dated 10.03.2017 issued by District Project Coordinator, RTESSA, Khurda; Rule Nisi; natural justice; mandamus for appointment orders; writ petition disposed of with liberty to file fresh representation and direction to Opposite Party No. 2 to decide within three months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh representation before Opposite Party No. 2 within three weeks with all relevant documents and citations; Opposite Party No. 2 directed to take a lawful decision thereon within three months of receipt and communicate the order to the Petitioner. ¶19

Sanjay Kumar Pujhari Vs State of Orissa — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned panel list dated 10.03.2017 at Annexure-1, prepared and published by the District Project Coordinator, RTESSA, Khurda, is illegal and in violation of the principle of natural justice and liable to be quashed, with a direction to issue appointment orders in favour of the Petitioner.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to make a fresh representation before Opposite Party No. 2, enclosing all relevant documents and citations in support of his claim, within a period of three weeks.

¶17

Key takeaways

If such representation is filed within the stipulated period, Opposite Party No. 2 shall take a lawful decision on the same within three months from the date of receipt of the representation, and the order so passed shall be communicated to the Petitioner.ratio¶18
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP(C) No. 4091 of 2018 (Order No. 05, 08.11.2024), High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. — Sanjay Kumar Pujhari v. State of Odisha & Ors. The Petitioner sought a Rule Nisi to quash the panel list dated 10.03.2017 (Annexure-1) prepared and published by the District Project Coordinator, RTESSA, Khurda, as illegal and violative of natural justice, and a mandamus directing issuance of appointment orders in his favour. Without adjudicating the merits, the Court disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to file a fresh representation before Opposite Party No. 2 within three weeks along with all relevant documents and citations, and directing Opposite Party No. 2 to take a lawful decision on such representation within three months of its receipt and to communicate the order so passed to the Petitioner.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 4091 of 2018

¶2

Sanjay Kumar Pujhari

¶3

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶4

..... Petitioner Mr. A.K. Sahoo, Advocate

¶5

-versus- ..... Opposite Parties Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC

¶6

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶7

08.11.2024

¶8

Order No. 05

¶9

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

¶11

Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶12

“Under the circumstances, the Petitioner therefore prays that notice of 'Rule Nisi' be issued to the Opposite Parties calling upon them to show cause as to why the impugned panel list dated 10.03.2017 at Annexure-1 above shall not be quashed as illegal and in violation of principle of natural justice.

¶13

And upon the opposite parties not showing cause or failing to show adequate cause, the said Rule be made absolute and the panel list dated 10.03.2017 prepared and published by the District Project Coordinator, RTESSA, Khurda at Annexure-1 be quashed issuing a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ as may be deemed fit and proper and a direction be issued to issue appointment orders in favour of the Petitioner.

¶14

And to grant such other relief/reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper.

¶15

And for which act of kindness the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

¶16

Page 1 of 2.

¶17

However, taking into account the claim raised in the present Writ Petition, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to make a fresh representation before Opp. Party No. 2 by enclosing all the relevant documents and citations in support of his claim, if any, within a period of three (3) weeks hence.

¶18

It is observed that if such representation is filed within the aforesaid time period, Opp. Party No. 2 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such representation. The order so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 be communicated to the Petitioner.

¶19