Santosh Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Santosh Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner permitted to move opposite party no.1 (Special Certificate Officer-cum-Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar) for expediting the Certificate Case No.29 of 2024; any such application to be considered on its own merit.

Issue for consideration

Whether the pending Certificate Case No.29 of 2024 before opposite party no.1 (Special Certificate Officer-cum-Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar) should be expedited.

Court's answer

Petitioner, if so advised, may move opposite party no.1 (Special Certificate Officer-cum-Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar) for expediting the pending certificate case.

Ratio / Principle

Any such application made by the petitioner shall be considered on its own merit, and the order shall be passed depending upon the pendency of such cases before the authority.

Key takeaways

The Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the case or the contentions of the parties in any manner.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition seeking expedition of pending Certificate Case No.29 of 2024 before opposite party no.1, Special Certificate Officer-cum-Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar. Petitioner relied on an order in his favour passed ex-parte by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Bhubaneswar in Case No.115 of 2016 dated 22.05.2018 against the present opposite party no.2; learned counsel had no instruction whether that order had been challenged. The Additional Government Advocate submitted that the execution case was filed in year 2024 and the matter could not be said to be delayed. The Court observed that the petitioner, if so advised, may move the Special Certificate Officer-cum-Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar for expediting the matter; any such application shall be considered on its own merit and orders passed depending upon the pendency of such cases before the authority. Writ petition disposed of, with an express clarification that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case or the contentions of the parties.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.12710 of 2025

…. Petitioner

Santosh Nayak

Mr. P.K. Behera, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha and another

…. Opp. Parties

Mr. D. Mohanty, AGA

CORAM:

JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

ORDER

16.05.2025 (Hybrid Mode)

Order No.

01.

1 . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The prayer in the petition is to target the Certificate Case No.29 of 2024 pending before the opposite party no.1. It is submitted that the petitioner is having a order in his favour passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Bhubaneswar passed in Case No.115 of 2016 dated 22.05.2018. As averred in the writ petition the said order was passed ex-parte against the present opposite party no.2.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was asked whether the said order was challenged or any other

Page 1 of 2

order had been passed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no further instruction whether the order has been challenged or not.

3. The learned Additional Government Advocate in response submits that execution case was filed in year 2024 and it cannot be said that the matter has been delayed.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that the petitioner if so advised shall move the opposite party no.1-Special Certificate Officer-cumSub-Collector, Bhubaneswar for expediting the matter. If any such application is made the same shall be considered in its own merit and the order shall be passed depending upon the pending of such cases before the authority.

5. The writ petition is disposed of.

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding merits of the case or contention of the parties in any manner.

(M.S. Sahoo)

Judge

RJ

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: RADHARANI JENA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 20-May-2025 18:21:27

Page 2 of 2