Dismissed¶22

Pravakar Mahalik v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC22 Aug 2025WP(C)/8177/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) No.8177 of 2025; Pravakar Mahalik and Others v. State of Odisha and Others; Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, section 68; O.A. No.4 of 2020; ex parte order dated 12.07.2022 (Annexure-10); eviction notice dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure-11); recall application dated 28.01.2025 pending; statutory remedy; writ petition dismissed; interim order in I.A. No.4298 of 2025 dated 26.03.2025 vacated; Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Cuttack; Coram: K.R. Mohapatra and Savitri Ratho, JJ.; Order dated 22.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Since the Petitioners have a statutory remedy against the order passed under Annexure-10, the Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. ¶21

Pravakar Mahalik Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.8177 OF 2025

¶3

Pravakar Mahalik and Others …. Petitioners

¶4

Mr. Subhransu Bhusan Mohanty. Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and Others

¶7

…. Opp. Parties

¶8

Mr.Manmaya Kumar Dash, Additional Standing Counsel Mr.Satya Sundar Upadhyaya, Advocate (for O.P. No.6) Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate (For Commissioner of Endowments)

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

22.08.2025

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

2 . The Petitioners, in this writ petition, seek to assail the ex parte order dated 12^th July, 2022 (Annexure-10) passed by the learned Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Cuttack in O.A. No.4 of 2020 initiated under section 68 of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’). The Petitioners also assail the eviction notice dated 20.01.2025 under Annexure-11 issued pursuant to order under Annexure-10.

¶17

In course of hearing, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that an application to recall the eviction notice dated 28.01.2025 is pending before the learned Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Cuttack.

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

Interest of justice would be best served if such application is disposed of in accordance with law .

¶20

Mr. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.6 and Ms. Naidu, learned counsel for the Commissioner of Endowments submit that they do not have any instruction in that regard. However, such an application is misconceived and is not maintainable.

¶21

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the Petitioners have statutory remedy against the order passed under Annexure-10, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

¶22