Dismissed¶18

Amulya v. State

Orissa HC17 Sept 2025OJC/12674/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; OJC No.12674 of 1998; decided 17.09.2025 by Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy. Petitioner: Amulya Kumar Sahoo (Mr. S.K. Rath-1, Advocate); Opposite Parties: State of Orissa & Ors. (Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA; Mr. R.P. Kar, Sr. Advocate for O.P.3). Keywords: dismissal of writ application; maintainability under Article 226, Constitution of India; medical negligence; S.V.P. Sishu Bhawan, Cuttack; death of Petitioner's son; compensation Rs.10,00,000/-; claim of 1997 filed 1998; pendency of 27 years; refusal of further time; liberty to approach alternative forum.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to move the alternative forum seeking grant of compensation, if the Petitioner so likes. ¶18

Amulya Vs State — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK OJC No.12674 of 1998

¶2

Amulya Kumar Sahoo Petitioner

¶3

Mr. S.K. Rath-1, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Orissa & Ors.

¶6

…. Opposite Party Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA Mr. R.P. Kar, Sr. Advocate for O.P.3

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order No.

17.09.2025

20. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶12

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

¶13

3. The present writ application even though was filed with multiple prayer but vide order dtd.01.07.2019, the writ application was confined so far as claim of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- on the ground of medical negligence caused by the authorities of S.V.P. Sishu Bhawan, Cuttack causing the death of Petitioner’s son. Vide the said order, this Court also on the request made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner allowed time to satisfy this Court that

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

against such a claim, writ application under Article226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable.

¶16

4. On the face such order, the matter was listed on 04.09.2025 and on the request made by the learned counsel for the Parties the matter was adjourned to today. Today when the matter was taken up, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner again prays for time to satisfy this Court that the writ application under Article-226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable.

¶17

5. This Court taking into account the nature of claim raised in the writ application in respect of a claim of the year 1997, so filed in the year 1998 and its pendency for the last 27 years is not inclined to allow any further time.

¶18

6. The Writ Application stands dismissed accordingly. It is open for the Petitioner to move the alternative forum seeking grant of compensation, if the Petitioner so likes.

¶19

Subrat

¶20

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 23-Sep-2025 17:44:08

¶23

Page 2 of 2

Amulya v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amulya v. State

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

Ramesh Chandra Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Kumar Palei Vs State of Odisha

Rajanikanta Patel Vs State of Odisha

Benudhar Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Sujit Debata Vs Bilash Kumar Behera,Engnr.-in-Chief,Odisha Water Supply and Swerage Board,Cuttack

Sunil Kumar Patra Vs Odisha Legislative Assembly