Sabita Chhotray Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sabita Chhotray Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No further relief awarded by this Court; the limited relief sought in the Writ Petition had already been granted by the concerned authority and the petitioner's grievance mitigated, following which the petition was disposed of with observations.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tahasildar's explanation for non-compliance with the earlier order of this Court was acceptable, and how the lapse should be dealt with. +2 more

Court's answer

The explanation offered by the Tahasildar, Balianta for the delay in complying with the earlier order of this Court is, on the face of it, not acceptable; however, the Court accepts his sincere apology with the rider that the officer concerned should be more careful in future.

Ratio / Principle

Since the limited relief sought in the Writ Petition has since been granted by the concerned authority and the petitioner's grievance duly mitigated (with corrections made in the ROR as submitted by counsel), the Court disposed of the Writ Petition with the above observations.

Key takeaways

Being a senior functionary under the State Government, the officer is expected to show more diligence and promptitude in complying with orders passed by the High Court.obiter¶15
This Court has not embarked upon any adjudication of the rights of the parties; it remains open to the parties to get their disputes, if any, adjudicated in the pending suit in which the intervenor's client stands impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.2413 of 2026 (Orissa HC, Sashikanta Mishra J., 20.07.2026): Taken up through hybrid mode. The Tahasildar, Balianta (Mr. Lilan Prasad Sahu) appeared in person and filed affidavits explaining failure to comply timely with an earlier order of the Court; his explanation was unacceptable on its face, but his apology was accepted with a rider to exercise greater care, and he was reminded that a senior State functionary must show diligence in complying with High Court orders. A counter affidavit recorded that the petitioner's grievance stood mitigated, and counsel confirmed necessary corrections had been made in the ROR. As the limited relief sought in the Writ Petition had since been granted by the concerned authority, and since the parties' rights were pending adjudication in a civil suit in which the intervenor's client had been impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., the Court expressly declined to adjudicate those rights and disposed of the Writ Petition with the above observations.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2413 of 2026

Sabita Chhotray

.…

Petitioner Represented by

Mr. Biplaba P.B. Bahali, Advocate -Versus-

State of Odisha & Others

.… Opp. Parties Represented by Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate (Intervenor)

CORAM:

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER

20.07.2026

Order No. 03.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

As directed, the Tahasildar, Balianta, Mr. Lilan Prasad Sahu, is present in person and files an affidavit seeking to explain the reason for not complying with the earlier order of this Court. He has stated that the concerned staff members of his office could not bring the order of this Court to his knowledge in time for which, there were some delay. The explanation so submitted is on the face of it, not acceptable. However, he has begged sincere apology for the lapse. This Court accepts the apology with the rider that the officer concerned should be more careful in future.

Mr. Sahu being a senior functionary under the State Government, is expected to show more diligence and promptitude in complying with the orders passed by the High Court.

The affidavit be taken on record.

He has also filed counter affidavit stating that the grievance of the petitioner has been duly mitigated.

Page 1 of 2

Mr. Bahali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits on instructions that necessary corrections have been made in the ROR.

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the proposed Intervenor submits that a suit has also been filed by the petitioner in which his client has been impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. He wanted to make further submissions but this Court observes that the Writ Petition was filed seeking a limited relief, which has since been granted by the concerned authority. This Court has not embarked upon any adjudication of the rights of the parties. It is open to the parties to get their disputes, if any, adjudicated in the pending suit. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations.

(Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

Puspanjali

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 22-Jul-2026 11:17:25

Page 2 of 2