Dismissed¶23

Padmalav Sahoo v. Union of India

Orissa HC7 May 2025WP(C)/1784/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; W.P.(C) No. 1784 of 2018; Padmalav Sahoo v. Union of India and others; dismissal of writ petition for default; prolonged non-appearance of petitioner and counsel since 2018; notices issued 04.07.2018; Vakalatnama lacking enrollment/mobile number; orders dated 21.04.2025 and 01.05.2025; decision dated 07.05.2025; Justice M.S. Sahoo.

What did the court decide?

After a continuous period of about seven years of non-appearance by learned counsel for the petitioner, it seems the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the matter. ¶20

Padmalav Sahoo Vs Union of India — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 1784 of 2018

Padmalav Sahoo

…. Petitioner

None

-versus-

Union of India and …. Opposite Parties others

¶8

Mr. P.K.Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. S. Samantaray, CGC For O.P. No.1 For O.Ps.2 to 6-None

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO

ORDER

07.05.2025

Hybrid Mode

Order No.

6. 1. None appears for the petitioner when the matter is called.

¶16

2. None had appeared on the last occasion when the matter was taken up.

¶17

Registry is also not able to contact learned counsel for petitioner in absence of the details like mobile number.

¶18

On 1.5.2025 following order was passed : “1. None appears for the petitioner when the matter is called.

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

2. In response to the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by this Bench to intimate the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Registry has put a note indicating that the enrollment or the mobile number is not mentioned in the Vakalatnama and the registry has not been able to contact the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The matter is pending since 2018. Notices were issued on 04.07.2018. On 04.07.2018 none had appeared for the petitioner. For a continuous period of about 7 years learned counsel for the petitioner has not appeared. It seems the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the matter.

¶21

The learned DSGI submits that copy of the petition has not been received in his office.

¶22

4. To grant further opportunity, list on 06.05.2025. The matter shall be proceeded with even if the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear.”

¶23

3. Apparently petitioner is not interested to prosecute the matter. As no one is appearing despite the order dated 1.5.2025 that the matter shall be proceeded with in absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, writ petition is dismissed for default .

¶24

(M.S.Sahoo) Judge

¶25

dutta

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: AJIT KUMAR DUTTA Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 08-May-2025 21:38:00

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Padmalav Sahoo v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmalav Sahoo v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saudamini Behera Vs Bijoy Behera

Sarbeswar Patra Vs Spl.L.a.O.,Angul

Sushanta Ku.Nayak Vs Spl.L.a.O.,Angul

Susanta Ku.Baral Vs State of Odisha

Mustari Begum Vs Sk. Sabaz

Sailendra Nath Mallick Vs the M.D.,Odisha Sta