Disposed¶30

Madhusudan Sa v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC6 Feb 2025WP(C)/1957/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employment; writ of mandamus; MCL Basundhara Open Cast Project, Sundargarh; representation dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure-4); direction to General Manager, MCL to consider and dispose of representation within three months; communication of order within two weeks thereafter; no expression of opinion on merits; Collector, Sundargarh; Special Land Acquisition Officer, MCL; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Opposite party no.3 (General Manager, M.C.L. Basundhara, O.C.P., Sundargarh) directed to consider petitioner no.1's representation dated 09.12.2024 in accordance with law and dispose of it within three months of production of a certified copy of the order, communicating the decision to the petitioners two weeks thereafter; urgent certified copy to issue as per Rules. ¶30

Madhusudan Sa Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ in the nature of mandamus should be issued directing opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to provide employment to petitioner nos. 2 and 3. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The Court expressly made clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the representation, having abstained from expressing any opinion on the prayer made.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

This writ petition is disposed of by directing opposite party no.3, the General Manager, M.C.L. Basundhara, O.C.P. (Open Cast Project), Sundargarh, to consider petitioner no.1's representation in accordance with law.

¶28

Key takeaways

The representation is to be disposed of within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by the petitioners, and the order communicated to the petitioners two weeks thereafter.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No.1957 of 2025, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, order dated 06.02.2025, S.K. Sahoo and Savitri Ratho, JJ.) - Petitioners Madhusudan Sa, Lukesh Kumar Sa and Mukesh Kumar Sa prayed for a writ of mandamus directing opposite party nos. 2 (Collector, Sundargarh) and 3 (General Manager, MCL, Basundhara OCP, Sundargarh) to provide employment to petitioner nos. 2 and 3. Petitioner no.1 had earlier submitted a representation to the General Manager on 09.12.2024 (Annexure-4) which had elicited no response. Learned counsel for the State raised no serious objection. Abstaining from expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court disposed of the petition directing opposite party no.3 to consider the representation in accordance with law and dispose of it within three months of production of a certified copy of the order, and to communicate the decision to the petitioners within two weeks thereafter.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.1957 of 2025

¶3

1. Madhusudan Sa

¶4

2. Lukesh Kumar Sa

¶5

3. Mukesh Kumar Sa ….. Petitioners

¶6

Ms. Rajalaxmi Biswal, Advocate

¶7

-versus-

¶8

1. State of Odisha

¶9

2. Collector, Sundargarh

¶10

3. General Manager, MCL, Basundhara, OCP (Open Cast Project), Sundargarh

¶11

4. Special Land Acquisition Officer, MCL, Basundhara OCP (Open Cast Project), ..... Opp. Parties Sundargarh

¶12

Mr. Sarat Pradhan, Addl. Standing Counsel

¶13

CORAM:

¶14

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

¶15

Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedSigned by: SIPUN BEHERAReason: AuthenticationLocation: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACKDate: 10-Feb-2025 11:30:23

¶16

THE HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Order No. 06.02.2025

¶19

This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶21

Page 1 of 3

¶22

The petitioners have filed this writ petition with the following prayer:

¶23

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi, calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued directing the opposite party no.2 and 3 to provide employment to the petitioner No.2 and 3;

¶24

And if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show their insufficient cause be pleased to make the said rule absolute;

¶25

And be pleased to pass such other order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper ”

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no.1 Madhusudan Sa has submitted a representation before the General Manager, M.C.L. Basundhara, O.C.P. (Open Cast Project), Sundargarh (opp. party no.3) on 09.12.2024 for providing employment to petitioner no.2 and petitioner no.3 vide Annexure-4 but he has not received any communication from the concerned authority and necessary direction may be issued for early disposal of the same.

¶27

Learned counsel for the State has no serious objection to such prayer.

¶28

Abstaining from expressing any opinion on the prayer made, this writ petition is disposed of directing the opp. party no.3, General Manager, M.C.L. Basundhara, O.C.P. (Open Cast Project), Sundargarh to

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

consider the representation of the petitioner no.1 in accordance with law and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioners and communicate the order to the petitioners two weeks thereafter. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the representation.

¶31

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

¶32

( S.K. Sahoo)

¶33

Judge

¶34

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶35

sipun

¶36

Page 3 of 3