Pranab Mahapatra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Feb 2026WP(C)/3262/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pranab Mahapatra v. State of Odisha & Ors.; W.P.(C) No.3262 of 2026; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice V. Narasingh; 03.02.2026; writ petition disposed with liberty; construction violating Odisha Municipal Act and Rules 1950; ingress egress regress; representation Annexure-6; Executive Officer Subarnapur Municipality; efficacious statutory remedy; fresh representation within four weeks; hearing to affected parties including Opposite Party Nos. 6 and 7; no view expressed on merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to pursue the representation at Annexure-6 and to make a fresh representation within four weeks along with a copy of this order; if submitted within that period, the fresh representation to be disposed of within four weeks thereafter, after giving hearing to all affected parties including Opposite Party Nos. 6 and 7.

Pranab Mahapatra Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the construction being made by Opposite Party Nos. 6 and 7 in gross violation of the Odisha Municipal Act and Rules 1950 affects the Petitioner's right of ingress, egress and regress. +2 more

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

On considering the rival submissions, the Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the Petitioner liberty to pursue the representation at Annexure-6.

¶¶21

Key takeaways

The Petitioner was permitted to make a fresh representation within a period of four weeks, to be submitted along with a copy of this order.ratio¶¶21
If the fresh representation is submitted within the aforementioned four-week period, it shall be disposed of within a further period of four weeks thereafter.ratio¶¶22
Disposal of the fresh representation is to take place after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the affected parties, including Opposite Party Nos. 6 and 7.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.3262 of 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (single judge: Justice V. Narasingh), order dated 03.02.2026 — Pranab Mahapatra v. State of Odisha and other opposite parties (including Collector, Subarnapur; Executive Officer, Subarnapur Municipality; Tahasildar, Sonepur; Inspector-in-Charge, Sonepur; Dusmanta Mohapatra; Aman Mohapatra). Grievance: Opposite Party Nos. 6 and 7 making construction in gross violation of the Odisha Municipal Act and Rules 1950, affecting the Petitioner's right of ingress, egress and regress; a representation to the Executive Officer, Subarnapur Municipality had gone unacted upon. Learned counsel for the State argued the petition was liable to be rejected as the Petitioner had an efficacious remedy under the statute. The Court disposed of the writ petition: liberty granted to pursue the Annexure-6 representation and to make a fresh representation within four weeks with a copy of the order; the fresh representation, if timely submitted, to be disposed of within a further four weeks after hearing all affected parties including Opposite Party Nos. 6 and 7. The Court expressly stated it had expressed no view on the merits, which are to be independently assessed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3262 of 2026

¶2

Pranab Mahapatra …. Petitioner

¶3

Mr. S. C. Mekap, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

1. State of Odisha …. Opposite Parties Represented through its Commissioner Cum Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Deptt., Govt. of Odisha, Bhubaneswar

¶6

2. Collector, Subarnapur

¶7

3. Executive Officer, Subarnapur Municipality

¶8

4. Tahasildar, Sonepur 5. Inspector-in-Charge, Sonepur

¶9

6. Dusmanta Mohapatra 7. Aman Mohapatra

¶10

Mr. S. K. Swain, AGA

¶11

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

Order

No.

ORDER

03.02.2026

01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

The grievance of the Petitioner is that in gross violation of the Odisha Municipal Act and Rules 1950, the Opposite Party Nos.6 and 7 are making construction affecting the right of the Petitioner ingress, egress and regress.

¶19

It is submitted by the learned counsel that ventilating his grievance the Petitioner has preferred a representation to the Executive Officer, Subarnapur Municipality (Opposite Party No.03) and alleging inaction the Petitioner has filed this writ application.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State submits that ex facie the writ petition is liable to be rejected, inter alia, on the ground that the Petitioner has efficacious remedy under the statute and he has rushed to this Court.

¶21

On considering the rival submissions, the writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the Petitioner to pursue the representation at Annexure-6 and permitted him to make a fresh representation as well within a period of four weeks along with a copy of this order.

¶22

And, if such fresh representation is submitted within the aforementioned period, the same shall be disposed of within a period of four weeks thereafter, after giving an opportunity of

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

hearing to all the affected parties including Opposite Party Nos.6 and 7.

¶25