Dhruba Charan Nayak Vs State of Orissa

Since after being referred to mediation centre, mediation became unsuccessful due to absence of Opp. Party No. 6, the matter was taken up by this Court.

¶13

Heard Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.26.05.2015 so issued by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-7.

¶15

It is the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that while rejecting the Petitioners’ claim vide the impugned communication, relevancy and effect of the report submitted by the Tahasildar, Banki under Annexure-4 was never taken into consideration and solely relying on the report submitted by the Opp. Party No. 6, Petitioners’ claim was rejected and that too

¶16

Page 1 of 3.

¶17

without giving any opportunity of hearing. It is accordingly contended that since the impugned communication has been made without taking into consideration the report submitted by the Tahasildar, which clearly proves the entitlement of the Petitioners to get the benefit, the said communication is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court.

¶18

Learned Addl. Standing Counsel basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No. 5, supported the impugned communication and contended that basing on the report submitted by Opp. Party No. 6, since it was found that Petitioners are not coming within the purview of the policy governing their claim, the impugned communication was issued under Annexure-7 pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 785 of 2015.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that while rejecting the Petitioners’ claim pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 785 of 2015, relevancy and effect of the report submitted by the Tahasildar under Annexure-4 has not been taken into consideration.

¶20

7.1. Since from the impugned order it is quite apparent that such report of the Tahasildar has not been taken into consideration and only relying on the report submitted by Opp. Party No. 6, claim of the Petitioners has been rejected, this Court on that ground only, is inclined to quash the impugned communication under Annexure-7. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioners’ claim in terms of the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 785 of 2015 and by giving

¶21

Page 2 of 3.

¶22

opportunity of hearing to Petitioner No. 1. This Court further directs Opp. Party No. 1 to take into consideration the relevancy and effect of the report submitted by the Tahasildar, Banki under Annexure-4. Such a fresh decision as directed be taken within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to Petitioner No. 1.

¶23

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶24

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶25

Sneha

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 26-Nov-2025 18:36:18

¶28

Page 3 of 3.

Dhruba Charan Nayak v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhruba Charan Nayak v. State of Orissa

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

Tp Western Odisha Distribution Ltd. Burla Vs Appellate Authority Office of the Addl.Chief Engineer Cum Elect. Inspector, Rourkela

Dillip Kumar Swain Vs State of Odisha

Pruthviraj Parida Vs State of Odisha

Sushil Kumar Kar Vs Principal Secy. to Govt.-Cum-Commnr.,H and Ud Dept.

Chitrasen Samantaray Vs State of Orissa

Guru Paraja Vs State of Odisha