Disposed¶25

Bidhubhusan Patra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC16 Oct 2025WP(C)/22906/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL withdrawal before High Court of Orissa; challenge to Government decision declaring Kantabania hamlet under Gadapadanpur Revenue Village (Tahasil, Nimapara); prayer to maintain status quo ante and quash notice under Annexure-2; leave to withdraw granted; writ petition disposed of as withdrawn; Bench: Harish Tandon, Chief Justice with M.S. Raman, Judge; order dated 16.10.2025; W.P.(C) No. 22906 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the writ petition granted; writ petition disposed of as withdrawn; no substantive relief granted. ¶25

Bidhubhusan Patra Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 22906 of 2025

¶3

Bidhubhusan Patra and others

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. Rama Chandra Mohanty, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties

¶8

Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Additional Standing Counsel

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶11

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

16.10.2025

1. Challenging the decision taken by the Government to declare Kantabania, hamlet under the Gadapadanpur Revenue Village (Tahasil, Nimapara), the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation with the following prayer(s):-

¶17

“In fine, all said and done the petitioners humbly pray this Hon’ble Court to admit the P.I.L., issue Rule Nisi by calling upon the opp. Parties to show cause as to why they are reluctant and willy nilly to address their heart piercing grievance, discontentment and dismay under Annexures-1 & 3 vis-à-vis Annexure-2 brooking no delay and consequentially maintaining the status quo ante of Revenue Village Gadapadanpur and its hamlet (pada) Kantabania are come what may at all events in the larger public interest and welfare.

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

Conversely, if the Opp. Parties miserably fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make it absolute by issuing appropriate writ/writs directing them to consider the deeprooted plight and predicament of petitioners in the context vis-à-vis Annexure-2 with alacrity and promptitude within a stipulated time scheduled in the larger public interest.

¶20

And may further be pleased to issue appropriate writ(s), order (s) to quash the notice under Annexure-2.

¶21

And be further pleased to issue any other writ (s), Order(s) as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper for dispensation of justice, equity and fairplay.

¶22

And for this act of generosity and benevolence the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶23

2. Mr. Rama Chandra Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, after arguing for some time, seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the instant writ petition. A memo in that regard is filed in the Court, which is taken on record.

¶24

3. Leave is granted.

¶25

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn.

¶26

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman)

Judge

S. Behera

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Oct-2025 11:54:16

¶32

Page 2 of 2

Bidhubhusan Patra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bidhubhusan Patra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binod Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Pratap Chandra Samantaray Vs Superintendent, Cgst and Central Excise, Kendrapada Circle

Basanti Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Ranjan Rout Vs State of Odisha

Durga Madhab Sahu Vs State of Odisha

M/S Kirin Technology Private Limited, Bbsr Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes