Nayan Kumar Raha Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Nayan Kumar Raha Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of: petitioner permitted to communicate his representation dated 19th April 2024 (on which opposite party no.2 had endorsed rejection) to opposite party no.2 with certified copy of this order; the Commissioner to consider whether installment payment for liquidation of the dues is possible, dealing with it in accordance with the law and the rules and first informing decision before any recovery from the petitioner on distress; no order obstructing the fresh settlement of the shop.

Issue for consideration

Whether the authority should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19th April 2024 for liquidating the dues on installments. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner may communicate copy of his representation dated 19th April 2024, though earlier submitted to the Government, to opposite party no.2, who had endorsed rejection on it.

Ratio / Principle

No order can be made obstructing the process of fresh settlement in respect of the shop.

Key takeaways

The communication is to be made along with certified copy of this order for the Commissioner to consider whether installment payment for liquidation of the dues is possible.ratio¶30
The Commissioner will deal with the representation in accordance with the law and the rules and first inform decision thereon before proceeding to recover from the petitioner on distress.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.631 of 2025 (Nayan Kumar Raha v. State of Odisha and others), High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, order dated 25.02.2025 (Arindam Sinha, Acting Chief Justice and M.S. Sahoo, Judge) — writ petition disposed of. Listed 'To Be Mentioned' after the petitioner failed to meet the deposit timetable (paragraph 4 of order dated 15th January 2025 required 50% of the dues by 22nd January 2025 on pain of deemed dismissal; order dated 18th February 2025 extended the aggregate deposit to 21st February 2025 and kept the fresh settlement of the shop in abeyance till the next date), counsel disclosing that the petitioner had in the meantime been declared a defaulter. Held: no order can be made obstructing the process of fresh settlement of the shop; the petitioner may communicate his representation dated 19th April 2024 for liquidating the dues in installments — on which opposite party no.2 had endorsed rejection — to opposite party no.2 along with certified copy of the order; the Commissioner to consider it from the perspective of whether installment payment is possible, in accordance with the law and the rules, and to first inform decision thereon before proceeding to recover from the petitioner on distress.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.631 of 2025

Nayan Kumar Raha

…. Petitioner

Represented By Adv. –

Mr. P.K. Rath, Senior Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha and others

…. Opposite Parties

Represented By Adv. – Mrs. Suman Pattanayak, Advocate (Additional Government Advocate)

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

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

ORDER

25.02.2025

Order No.

04.

1. The writ petition has been listed under heading ‘To Be

Mentioned’ pursuant to direction in order dated 18^th February, 2025. Paragarphs-1 and 4 from said order are reproduced below.

“1. Mr. Rath, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and with reference to

Page 1 of 3

paragraph 4 in our order dated 15^th January, 2025 submits, the writ petition is deemed to have been dismissed because his client could not pay 50% of the dues by 22^nd January, 2025. Pointing out to further direction in said paragraph of the order he submits, 100% of the dues will be liquidated on or prior to 21^st February, 2025. Said direction paragraph be modified accordingly. He files application on leave granted, to disclose that in the meantime his client has been declared as defaulter.

4. Directions in paragraph 4 of order dated 15^th January, 2025 are modified to be that aggregate of the deposit as directed thereby is to be made by 21^st February, 2025. Omission will lead to dismissal of the writ petition. As a consequence of the modification, process initiated for settling the shop be kept in abeyance, till next date of hearing.”

2. Mr. Rath submits, due to unavoidable circumstances, his client was unable to pay. As such, there be a direction upon the authority to consider his client’s representation dated 19^th April, 2024 for liquidating the dues on installments.

3. Mrs. Pattanayak, learned advocate, Additional

Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and

Page 2 of 3

reiterates her instruction that fresh settlement of the shop is under process.

4. No order can be made obstructing the process of fresh settlement in respect of the shop. Petitioner may communicate copy of said representation, though earlier submitted to the Government, to opposite party no.2, who had endorsed rejection on it. The communication be made along with certified copy of this order for the Commissioner to consider it from perspective of whether installment payment for liquidation of the dues is possible. The Commissioner will deal with the representation in accordance with the law and the rules and first inform decision thereon before proceeding to recover from petitioner on distress.

5. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Acting Chief Justice

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:57:29

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge

Prasant

Page 3 of 3