Dillip Kumar Das Vs the Commissioner, Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack

Heard Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2, Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4.

¶18

On notice having been issued, learned counsel has entered appearance for private Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4.

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition alleging inaction on the part of the authorities of the Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack.

¶21

For convenience of reference, the prayer in the writ petition is extracted hereunder:-

¶22

“It is therefore prayed that your this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the Writ Application, call for the records direct the Opp. Party No.- 1 & 2 Authority to register the Complaint/Grievance of the Petitioner as a case vide Annexure-3, issue order(s) /direction(s) against the Opp. Party No.- 3 & 4 to initiate the legal proceeding so also to pass necessary order(s) for a fair field inquiry and after inquiry pass necessary orders against the Opp. Parties as per law and direction be made against the Opp. Parties to make separate arrangements for the drainage and sewage system so also the septic tank for their use in connection with the affairs of Sankar Lodge; And may further be pleased to issue notice to the private Opp. Parties to show cause as to why appropriate writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) shall not be issued to take appropriate arrangement for the safety and hygiene of the Ground Floor tenants of the Petitioner so also for the public for the unsafe and unhygienic sewage and drainage system of the building over Plot No.- 18/1055, Khata No.-535/103, of Mauza- Cuttack Sahar Unit No.-17, Badambadi and if the Opp. Party fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the writ(s)/ direction(s)/order(s) shall be made absolute against the private Opp. Parties.

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

And may pass any other order(s)/direction(s) as deem just and proper.

¶25

xxx xxx xxx”

¶26

Referring to the provisions as contained under Sections 327, 330, 331 & 599 of the Odisha Municipal Corporation Act, 2003, it is submitted that the inaction of the authorities merits interference by this Court in exercise of its plenary powers and more so since the Petitioner’s complaint/grievance submitted to the Opposite Party No.2 has remain unaddressed. 5. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 and Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4 submit that there are inter-se dispute between the Petitioner and the private Opposite Parties. Hence, this writ petition is not entertainable.

¶27

Considering the rival submission and keeping in view the provisions of the Odisha Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 adverted to hereinabove, this Court is persuaded to hold that interest of justice would be sub-served if the Opposite Party No.2-Asst. Commissioner, Sanitation Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack is called upon to take a decision in the matter within a period of four weeks hence after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner as well as Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4. The

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

decision so taken shall be communicated to the parties.

¶30

To cut short any further delay, the Petitioner and the Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4 shall appear before the Opposite Party No.2-Asst. Commissioner, Sanitation Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack on 23.03.2026 to receive further instructions. 8. Since this order has been passed in the presence of the parties, no further notice need be issued to them.

¶31

It is needless to state here that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the claim of the Petitioner and Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4 which has to be gone into in an independent manner as well as the power of the Opposite Party No.2-Asst. Commissioner, Sanitation Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack to exercise the jurisdiction in terms of the Odisha Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 referred to hereinabove in the factual matrix of the case at hand. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶32

(V. Narasingh) Ayesha Judge

¶33

Ayesha

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 10-Mar-2026 14:06:47

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Dillip Kumar Das v. the Commissioner, Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dillip Kumar Das v. the Commissioner, Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padmabati Behera Vs Manas Ku.Mohanty

Ramakrushna Kar Vs State of Odisha

Bidyadhar Rout Vs State of Odisha

A.Tripathy Patro Vs State

Sibananda Nayak Vs Suchitra Nayak

Babu @ Mamataj @ Mumtaj Alli Khan Vs State of Odisha