Disposed¶20

Dr. Upendra Parida v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Dec 2025CMAPL/231/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution; recall of dismissal order by coordinate Bench; equality principle 'what applies to goose, shall apply to gander'; lenient treatment of delay analogous to CMAPL No.233 of 2025 (order dated 10.11.2025); W.P.(C) No.12690 of 2025; CMAPL No.231 of 2025; Dr. Upendra Parida; State of Odisha; Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; order dated 10.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Recall of the dismissal order dated 17.06.2025 passed by a coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No.12690 of 2025 and restoration of the main matter (writ petition) to the Board. ¶20

Dr. Upendra Parida Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CMAPL No.231 of 2025

¶3

Dr. Upendra Parida …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr.Prafulla Ku. Sahu, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Another

¶7

… Opposite Parties Mr.S.K. Jee, AGA

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

ORDER

10.12.2025

Order No.

The subject of this application is substantially similar to the one in CMAPL No.233 of 2025 wherein this Court, vide order dated 10.11.2025, has observed as

¶14

under:-

¶15

“A coordinate Bench, vide order dated 24.06.2025, had dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution. Applications are moved, one for condonation of delay and another for its restoration. Delay, counsel for the petitioner submits, is not there. Assuming that there is a delay, in matters like this, the same has to be viewed leniently. After all, if the request is allowed, what would happen is that the matter is restored to the Board and shall be heard on merits and thus, no prejudice would be caused to anyone. Conversely, if the request for restoration is denied then its end of the matter regardless of the merits thereof. Non-prosecution is not a happy thing to happen at the hands of Constitutional Courts when so many matters are pending for consideration.

¶16

It is not that the case would have been heard and finally decided by the Court, if it was not dismissed for non-prosecution. The papers would have been languishing in the Court cupboard without seeing the ray of light.

¶17

Page 1 of 1

¶18

In the above circumstances, the applications are allowed. The arguable delay is condoned. The order dated 24.06.2025 having been recalled, the writ petition is restored to the Board for consideration afresh.”

¶19

Applying the rule of equality, what applies to goose, shall apply to gander and therefore, the dismissal order dated 17.06.2025 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.12690 of 2025 is hereby recalled and as a consequence, the main matter is restored to the Board.

¶20

The CMAPL is disposed off.

¶21

( Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶22

Basu

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 12-Dec-2025 16:27:04

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Dr. Upendra Parida v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Upendra Parida 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasanna Kumar Dash Vs State of Odisha

Pramod Kumar Rath Vs State of Odisha

Prasanta Kumar Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Biswanath Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Alekha Kumar Swain Vs State of Orissa

B. Bhasker Reddy Vs State of Odisha