Disposed¶32

Rabinarayan Mishra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Feb 2026CMAPL/254/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 250 days; recall of order; dismissal for non-prosecution; restoration of writ petition; death of counsel Bidyadhar Pradhan; W.P. (C) No. 39957 of 2021; CMAPL No.254 of 2025; I.A. No.408 of 2025; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; State of Odisha; Commissioner of Endowments; Rabinarayan Mishra; K.R. Mohapatra; Sanjay Kumar Mishra

What did the court decide?

Delay of 250 days in filing the CMAPL condoned (I.A. No.408 of 2025 disposed of); order dated 28th October, 2024 dismissing W.P. (C) No. 39957 of 2021 for non-prosecution recalled; writ petition restored to file; CMAPL disposed of accordingly. ¶32

Rabinarayan Mishra Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMAPL No.254 of 2025

¶2

Rabinarayan Mishra and Another

¶3

Petitioners

¶4

Mr. Subhasis Mohapatra, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and Another

¶7

…. Opp. Parties Mr.Manmaya Kumar Dash, (Additional Standing Counsel) Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate (for the Commissioner of Endowments)

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶10

Order No.

¶11

ORDER 18.02.2026

¶12

I.A. No.408 of 2025

¶13

¶14

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

2 . This is an application for condonation of delay of 250 days in filing the CMAPL.

¶16

Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bidyadhar Pradhan died on 2^nd October, 2024. But, the petitioners could not know about the same. The Petitioners came to know about the sad demise of Mr. Bidyadhar Pradhan only from the newspaper. Then he came to Cuttack and enquired about the matter and came to know that the writ petition has already been dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 28^th October, 2024. He, therefore, submits that the delay in filing the writ petition is not intentional and bona fide. He, therefore, prays for condoning the delay in filing the CMAPL.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel and Ms. Naidu, learned counsel for the Commissioner of Endowments do not have any objection to the prayer for condonation of delay.

¶19

In view of the above, the delay in filing the CMAPL is condoned.

¶20

The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.

¶21

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶22

(S.K. Mishra) Judge

¶23

CMAPL No.254 of 2025

¶24

1. As requested by learned counsel for the parties, the CMAPL is taken up for consideration.

¶25

This CMAPL has been filed to recall order dated 28^th October, 2024 by which writ petition was dismissed or nonproseuction.

¶26

Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners receiving the brief from their Counsel, who had filed the writ petition engaged Mr.Bidyadhar Pradhan, learned counsel to conduct the case. But unfortunately, he expired on 2^nd October, 2024. But the petitioners could not know about the same. They came to know about the sad demise of Mr. Bidyadhar Pradhan from the newspaper. But by then, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 28^th October, 2024. Then the Petitioners came to Cuttack and made an inquiry about the

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

status of their case by engaging the present set of learned counsel. After making due inquiry, the CMAPL has been filed.

¶29

Hence, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for recalling the order dated 28^th October, 2024 and to hear W.P. (C) No. 39957 of 2021 on merit.

¶30

Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel and Ms. Naidu, counsel for the Commissioner of Endowments do not have any objection to the prayer for restoration of the writ petition.

¶31