Disposed¶22

Mitarani Moharana v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 Apr 2026FAO/272/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAO No.272 of 2019, Orissa High Court, order dated 15.04.2026 (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J.: sole holding that the issue is directly covered by the ratio of FAO No.509 of 2014, State of Odisha vs. Ratnakar Mohapatra, decided 19.03.2025; appeal disposed of in identical terms, merits untouched, relief conditional on factual-similarity verification; follows post-restoration after delay condonation with Rs.2,000/- cost. Citable only alongside FAO No.509 of 2014.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of in terms of the judgment in FAO No.509 of 2014; no opinion expressed on merits; relief conditional on verification that the factual scenario of the present FAO is similar to that of FAO No.509 of 2014. ¶22

Mitarani Moharana Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the issue involved in FAO No.272 of 2019 is directly covered by the ratio laid down in State of Odisha and another vs. Ratnakar Mohapatra and another, FAO No.509 of 2014, so that the appeal can be disposed of in identical terms (the substantive subject-matter of the appeal is not stated in this order).

¶21

Ratio / Principle

This Court held the issue involved in the present FAO to be directly covered by the ratio it laid down in State of Odisha and another vs. Ratnakar Mohapatra and another, FAO No.509 of 2014 (judgment dated 19.03.2025).

¶21

Key takeaways

FAO No.272 of 2019 is disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in FAO No.509 of 2014.ratio¶22
The Court expressly did not express any opinion on the merits of the matter.ratio¶22
The relief sought for is subject to verification that the factual scenario involved in the present FAO is similar to that involved in FAO No.509 of 2014.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J.), FAO No.272 of 2019 — Order dated 15.04.2026. Delay in filing had been condoned vide order dated 19.03.2026 (I.A. Nos.122 of 2026 and I.A. No.449 of 2025) subject to cost of Rs.2,000/-, and the appeal had been restored to file by allowing I.A. No.183 of 2025. Finding the issue involved 'directly covered by the ratio laid down by this Court' in State of Odisha and another vs. Ratnakar Mohapatra and another, FAO No.509 of 2014 (judgment dated 19.03.2025), the Court disposed of the present FAO 'in terms of' that judgment — expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits — and made the relief sought subject to verification that the factual scenario in the present FAO is similar to that in FAO No.509 of 2014. A companion-disposal order; the substantive subject-matter of the appeal is not set out in the text.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.272 of 2019

¶2

1) Mitarani Moharana

¶3

..... Appellants

¶4

1. Janmejaya Satpathy Represented by Adv. - 3) Manoj Ku Samal M/s Jaspreet Kaur, 4) Tapan Ku Mohata M/s.subhasish Mohanty 5) Purushottam Rout

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1) state of odisha

¶7

..... Respondents

¶8

Director,Higher Education,Odisha Represented by Adv. – 3) Governing Body of Raghunath Jr. Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC Mahavidyalaya

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

15.04.2026

Order No.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶17

On perusal on record it appears that in I.A. Nos.122 of 2026 and I.A. No.449 of 2025 this Court vide order dated 19.03.2026 has condoned the delay subject to payment of a cost of Rs.2,000/-.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that she has already deposited the cost. Moreover, vide the very same order dated 19.03.2026 passed in I.A. No.183 of 2025 wherein the I.A. was allowed, the FAO has been restored to file and the same has been listed today ‘For Orders’.

¶19

On perusal of the FAO No.272 of 2019 and upon hearing learned counsel appearing for both sides, this Court is of the view

¶20

Page 1 of 2.

¶21

that the issue involved in the present FAO is directly covered by the ratio laid down by this Court in State of Odisha and another vs. Ratnakar Mohapatra and another bearing FAO No.509 of 2014 decided vide judgment dated 19.03.2025.

¶22

In such view of the matter, the present FAO is also disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in FAO No.509 of 2014. However, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and the relief sought for is subject to verification of the fact that the factual scenario involved in the present FAO is similar to that involved in FAO No.509 of 2014.

¶23

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge

¶24

Sisir

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANCE Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 16-Apr-2026 19:05:32

¶27

Page 2 of 2.

Mitarani Moharana v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mitarani Moharana 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Subash Chandra Chakrabarty Vs Paramananda Jhaa, Managing Director, Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Khordha

Dilip Kumar Pradhan Vs Dr. Laxmidhar Behera,Chief District Veterinary Officer, Koraput

Bipraranjan Mishra Vs Vishal Singh, Collector and D.M., Keonjhar

M.C. of Chintamani Bidyapitha,Sampada Vs State of Odisha

Paritosh Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Dr. Sarojini Das @ Dash Vs State of Odisha