Disposed¶21

Ch.Subash Chandra Subudhi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Mar 2025WP(C)/665/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of writ petition; unconditional withdrawal; liberty to file fresh application refused/not pursued; RWS&S tubewell sinking/rigging works; Bhanjanagar Block; Ganjam district; Superintending Engineer RWS&S Division Bhanjanagar; cause of action; matter heard in hybrid mode; High Court of Orissa; disposed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition unconditionally; I.A. No.3216 of 2025 and the writ petition disposed of as withdrawn. ¶21

Ch.Subash Chandra Subudhi Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.665 OF 2025

¶3

Ch. Subash Chandra Subudhi

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. K. Badehi, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

…. Opp. Parties

¶9

Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Order No.

¶14

10.03.2025 W.P.(C) No.665 of 2025 & I.A. No.3216 of 2025

¶15

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

This is an application filed by the Petitioner to withdraw the writ petition seeking liberty to file a fresh application, if required by the Petitioner in future.

¶17

Mr. Badhei, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the writ petition has been filed to direct the Superintending Engineer, RWS&S Division, Bhanjanagar-Opposite Party No.4 to allot the works for sinking/rigging of new tubewells in different villages of Bhanjanagar Block in the district of Ganjam.

¶18

It is submitted by Mr. Badehi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Opposite Party No.4 has assured to redress the grievance of the Petitioner. Hence, this I.A. has been filed.

¶19

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits on instruction that, no such assurance has been given by Opposite Party No.4 for redressal of the grievances of the Petitioner as the Petitioner does not have any cause of action to move the Opposite Party No.4. The written instruction submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel is taken on record.

¶20

At this stage, Mr. Badehi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition unconditionally.

¶21

Accordingly, the I.A. as well as the writ petition stand disposed of as withdrawn.

¶22

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

(S.K. Mishra)

Judge

Prasant

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 11-Mar-2025 18:25:32

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Ch.Subash Chandra Subudhi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch.Subash Chandra Subudhi 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

M/S. L.G. Trading Co., West Bengal Vs Principal Cheif Material Manager, Khurda

Authorized Officer Cum Chief Manager , Union Bank of India, Bbsr Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal , Odisha, Cuttack

Neha Power Solution, Cuttack Vs Nutan Agarwal Authorised Officer of Icici Bank Ltd., Kolkata

M/S. Sparktech, Engineering and Construction Company, Bbsr Vs Authorised Officer, Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Rajesh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

M/S Adilakhshmi Engineering, Angul Vs Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited, Sambalpur