Anjaneya Educational and Charitable Trust, Ganjam Vs State of Odisha

“1. It is submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner that inadvertent typographical errors have been made at several pages of the writ petition and also the prayer paragraph, wherein the date of the order that is under challenge / sought to be quashed has been wrongly indicated. He seeks leave of the Court to correct the same. Prayer allowed.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner has liberty to correct the typographical errors as have crept in to the petition regarding date of the impugned order with his initials, to be counter signed by the Court Master.

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

2 . The petitioner-Institution challenges the order dated 16^th April, 2025 wherein and whereby the Institution has not been granted the No Objection Certificate (NOC) to impart under graduate education in Allied Medical Science.

¶21

The petitioner-Institution had applied for imparting course of Ophthalmic Assistant, 60 seats for the academic year, 2025-26.

¶22

3. Issue notice.

¶23

The learned Additional Standing Counsel upon advance copy served appears and waives notice on behalf of opposite party No.1.

¶24

Mr. R.C. Mohanty, learned counsel who usually appears on behalf of opposite parties No.2 and 3, upon advance copy served appears for the opposite parties No.2 and 3 and waives notice.

¶25

4 . It is submitted by Mr. Swain, along with Mr. R.C. Mohanty, learned counsel that opposite parties No.2 and 3 be given short adjournment to obtain instruction.

¶26

Accordingly, list on 11^th September, 2025 under the same heading.

¶27

5. During pendency of the petition, the petitioner shall have the liberty to comply with any requirement sought for by the Authority for grant of NOC.

¶28

The learned counsel for the opposite parties No.2 and 3 shall also instruct the authority accordingly.”

¶29

2. Referring to the above order, it is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. L.K. Mohanty that the Petitioner Institution through its representative has already produced the original Trust Deed before the Authority, and copy of the same is served on Mr. R.C. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos.2 and 3.

¶30

3. Accordingly, it is directed that the Authorities shall consider the Trust Deed said to have been produced in original before it and take decision accordingly at the earliest in view of the pending counseling and

¶31

Page 2 of 3

¶32

admission procedure. We express no opinion regarding authenticity of the said Deed, as there is no scope for any observation like that.

¶33

4. The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶34

(Manash Ranjan Pathak)

¶35

Judge

¶36

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)

¶37

Judge

¶38

S.K. Parida

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: SAMIR KUMAR PARIDA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentic Copy Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUT TACK Date: 12-Sep-2025 19:54:43

¶41

Page 3 of 3

Anjaneya Educational and Charitable Trust, Ganjam v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjaneya Educational and Charitable Trust, Ganjam 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

State of Odisha Vs Managing Committee of Gandarda High School

Nirupama Mohapatra Vs State of Orissa

Pradosh Kumar Rout Vs Twinkle Biswal

State of Odisha Vs Sunia Murmu

Haribandhu Padhan Vs Patuari Padhan

Sasmita Das Vs State of Odisha