Disposed¶21

Manoj Bhutia v. Union of India

Orissa HC18 Jul 2025WP(C)/13437/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of writ petition permitted; Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006; employment claim rejected by Director, Personnel, Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited (Opposite Party No.3) by order dated 28.05.2021; disposed as withdrawn; no opinion expressed on merits; liberty to approach authority afresh; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justices K.R. Mohapatra and Savitri Ratho; decision date 18.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed of as withdrawn pursuant to I.A. No.11703 of 2025; the Petitioner may approach Opposite Party No.3 afresh for consideration of his prayer for benefit under the Policy, with the express clarification that the Court expressed no opinion on the merits. ¶21

Manoj Bhutia Vs Union of India — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner was entitled to employment / extension of benefit under the provisions of the Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006, his claim having been rejected by the order dated 28.05.2021 of Opposite Party No.3; the issue was left undecided as the writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn.

¶16

Court's answer

The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merit of any fresh application the Petitioner may file for fresh consideration of his prayer for extension of benefit under the Policy, thereby leaving him free to approach Opposite Party No.3 afresh.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

On the submissions of counsel and the prayer in I.A. No.11703 of 2025, this Court disposed of the writ application as withdrawn.

¶21

Key takeaways

I.A. No.11703 of 2025 was also accordingly disposed of.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.13437 of 2022 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Coram: K.R. Mohapatra and Savitri Ratho, JJ.; Order dt. 18.07.2025) — Manoj Bhutia v. Union of India and Others. The writ petition challenged the order dated 28.05.2021 of the Director, Personnel, Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited, Jagruti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur (Opposite Party No.3) rejecting the Petitioner's claim for providing employment under the provisions of the Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006. Through I.A. No.11703 of 2025 the Petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition in order to approach Opposite Party No.3 afresh. The Court disposed of the writ application as withdrawn and expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merit of any fresh application for extension of benefit under the Policy; the I.A. was likewise disposed of. The submission of Opposite Party Nos.2 to 5 that a fresh application was not maintainable, the benefit having already been refused, was left undetermined.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.13437 of 2022

¶2

Manoj Bhutia

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr.Sanjib Kumar Bhanjadeo, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Union of India and Others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, Additional Standing Counsel Mr.Pratyush Ranjan Patnaik, Advocate (for Opposite Party Nos.2 to 5) Mr.Dipti Ranjan Bhokta, CGC for O.P.No.1

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

¶11

Order No.

¶12

ORDER 18.07.2025 W.P.(C) No.13437 of 2022 &

¶13

I.A. No.11703 of 2025

¶14

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

This writ application has been filed with a prayer to set aside

¶16

the order dated 28.05.2021 passed by the Director, Personnel, Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited, Jagruti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur (Opposite Party No.3) in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for providing employment under the provisions of Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 (for brevity, ‘the Policy’).

¶17

The Petitioner has filed the aforesaid I.A. with a prayer to withdraw the writ petition to approach the Authority (Opposite Party No.3) afresh for redressal of his grievance.

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

Mr.Patnaik, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 5 submits that the Opposite Party No.3, considering the case of the Petitioner, has already refused to extent the benefit under the provisions of the Policy, as he is not entitled to the same. Thus, fresh application for extension of benefit under the said policy is not maintainable.

¶20

Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that since the Petitioner wants to withdraw the writ petition, he has no objection to the same.

¶21

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the prayer made in I.A. No.11703 of 2025, this Court disposes of the writ application as withdrawn. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the application, if any, to be filed by the Petitioner for fresh consideration of his prayer for extension of benefit under the policy.

¶22