Dismissed¶29

B.Nagarjun v. Orissa Hydropower Co.

Orissa HC12 Mar 2025WP(C)/6955/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recall of dismissal order dated 24.01.2025 in W.P.(C) No.6955 of 2013 (High Court of Orissa) due to Registry cause-list error omitting counsel Pradeep Kumar Rout for Orissa Hydropower Corporation Limited; restoration of writ petition; OHPC letter dated 27.02.2025 (Annexure-C) to be ignored; subsequent dismissal of petition for non-prosecution as petitioner absent on repeated calls; I.A. No.4070 of 2025; Justice M.S. Raman; order dated 12.03.2025; hybrid mode; vakalatnama verification.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No.4070 of 2025 disposed of by recalling the order dated 24.01.2025 and restoring W.P.(C) No.6955 of 2013 to its original file; the Annexure-C letter dated 27.02.2025 directed to be ignored; the restored writ petition thereafter dismissed for non-prosecution. ¶29

B.Nagarjun Vs Orissa Hydropower Co. — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 24.01.2025 dismissing W.P.(C) No.6955 of 2013 should be recalled on the ground that the Registry failed to reflect the appearance of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rout, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties, in the cause list. +2 more

¶19

Court's answer

The dismissal of the matter on 24.01.2025 resulted from the Registry's mistake in failing to reflect the appearance of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rout, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties, in the cause list.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 24.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.6955 of 2013 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original file; I.A. No.4070 of 2025 accordingly stands disposed of.

¶24

Key takeaways

The Letter No. OHPC-HQ-HRD-LEGALCF-IND-360/2013/1428 dated 27.02.2025 issued by the Odisha Hidro Power Corporation Ltd. (Annexure-C) is to be ignored.ratio¶21
The writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution as none appeared for the petitioner on repeated calls, including on 24.01.2025, and the Court declined to adjourn the matter any further.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.P.(C) No.6955 of 2013 (Order No.17, 12.03.2025, M.S. Raman, J.): Counsel for Opposite Party Orissa Hydropower Corporation Limited had filed a Vakalatnama (noted as filed on 06.01.2021; copy dated 30.12.2021 enclosed), but the Registry omitted his name from the cause list dated 24.01.2025, showing instead Mr. B.K. Nayak and D.K. Mohanty; the matter consequently stood dismissed on 24.01.2025 in counsel's absence. On I.A. No.4070 of 2025 the Court found the omission to be a Registry mistake due to inadvertence, recalled the order dated 24.01.2025, restored the petition to its original file, and observed that OHPC's Letter No. OHPC-HQ-HRD-LEGALCF-IND-360/2013/1428 dated 27.02.2025 (Annexure-C), issued as if the default was the counsel's, is to be ignored. On the restored petition none appeared for the petitioner on repeated calls (nor on 24.01.2025); the Court declined further adjournment and dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6955 of 2013

¶2

B. Nagarjun

¶3

…. Petitioner None

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Orissa Hydropower Corporation Ltd., Orissa State Police Housing & Welfare Corporation Building and others

¶6

…. Opposite Parties

¶7

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rout, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Order No.

ORDER 12.03.2025

I.A. No.4070 of 2025

¶14

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶15

It is pointed out by the Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rout, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties-Orissa Hydropower Corporation Limited by way of filing an Interlocutory Application bearing I.A. No.4070 of 2025 that though he has filed Vakalatnama being executed by Orissa Hydropower Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar before the Registry on 06.01.2021, his name didn’t appear in the cause list dated 24.01.2025. Consequent upon which, he could not remain present/appear to represent the opposite parties-Orissa Hydropower Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar.

¶16

2.1. He submits that on account of such lapse on the part of the registry of this Court, a letter dated 27.02.2025 (Annexure-C) has come to be issued to him as if the default was on account of the counsel.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

2.2. He has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure-B enclosed to I.A. On perusal of the copy of cause list, it is ascertained that the matter was listed at Item No.21 of the cause list dated 24.01.2025, wherein the names of Mr. B.K. Nayak and D.K. Mohanty are reflected against the Opposite parties.

¶19

Due to mistake in reflecting correct position regarding appearance of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rout, learned counsel for Opposite parties by the Registry in the cause list, it could not be possible for him to attend the Court on 24.01.2025 on which date the matter stood dismissed without indicating his appearance.

¶20

Copy of Vakalatnama dated 30.12.2021 is enclosed to the I.A. No.4070 of 2025. On perusal of said Vakalatnama as available on the record, it is ascertained that the fact of filing of Vakalatnama is correct, but name of Sri Pradeep Kumar Rout, Advocate was not reflected in the cause list. It seems due to inadvertence the cause list dated 24.01.2025 did not take note of appearance of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rout, learned counsel for the opposite parties superseding the earlier counsel M/s. B.K. Nayak, Advocate and his Associates.

¶21

It appears due to error in reflecting the name of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rout, learned counsel for the opposite parties in the cause list, it is unfortunate that the Letter No. OHPC-HQ-HRD-LEGALCF-IND-360/2013/1428 dated 27.02.2025 has come to be issued by the Odisha Hidro Power Corporation Ltd. (Annexure-C to the I.A.). This Court feels it to be observed that the same is to be ignored.

¶22

Today, also in the cause list, the name of learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties is not reflected.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

In view of such situation the order dated 24.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.6955 of 2013 is recalled and W.P.(C) No.6955 of 2013 is restored to its original file. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.

¶25

W.P.(C) No.6955 of 2013

¶26

None appears for the petitioner on repeated calls today.

¶27

Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rout, learned counsel for the opposite parties-Orissa Hydropower Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar.

¶28

Since this matter is of the year 2013 and no one has put in appearance on repeated calls and taking note the fact that on earlier occasion i.e ., 24.01.2025 no one represented the Petitioner at the time of call, this Court is not inclined to adjourn this matter any further.

¶29

In view of such, the writ petition stands dismissed for nonprosecution.

¶30

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶31

Suchitra

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Mar-2025 16:59:40

¶34

Page 3 of 3

B.Nagarjun v. Orissa Hydropower Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Nagarjun v. Orissa Hydropower Co.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Buchi Amma Vs Collector, Malkangiri

Rashmi Ranjan Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Nihar Ranjan Pattanaik Vs State of Odisha

Jitendriya Mohanty Vs Soumyarashmi Panigrahi

Sushanta Kumar Pattnaik Vs State of Odisha

Tulika Mohanty Vs Srikumar Shaktidatta Mohanty