Dismissed¶20

Kulamani Majhi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 Apr 2026WP(C)/34481/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition - non-decision on representation for extension of time to execute and complete works contract - subsequent disposal of representation dated 13.11.2025 with closure of contract and forfeiture of all deposits - reliefs rendered inappropriate - petition dismissed as infructuous due to subsequent event - liberty to initiate appropriate proceeding before competent Court against rejection and forfeiture - High Court of Orissa at Cuttack - W.P.(C) No.34481 of 2025 - Kulamani Majhi v. State of Odisha and others - order dated 08.04.2026 - Bench: Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.S. Raman (Murahari Sri Raman).

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to challenge the communication dated 13.11.2025 (rejection of the extension request and forfeiture of deposits) by initiating an appropriate proceeding before the competent Court.

Kulamani Majhi Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.34481 of 2025

¶3

Kulamani Majhi …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr.Shubhendu Kumar Parida, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties Mr.Debashis Tripathy, Addl. Government Advocate

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶9

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

08.04.2026

1. The instant writ petition is filed alleging that despite a representation having made to the competent authority for extension of time to execute and complete the work, the same remained in abeyance and no decision has been taken thereupon.

¶14

2. On the day of admission of the instant writ petition, we directed the learned Addl. Government Advocate representing the State to disclose whether the grievance so raised by the petitioner has already been redressed and/or addressed by them.

¶15

3. Today, when the matter is listed, it is submitted by the learned Addl. Government Advocate that the authorities have already disposed of the said representation on 13.11.2025 indicating the closure of the contract and also forfeited all the deposits on

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

the basis of the terms and conditions embodied in the agreement. Learned counsel for the petitioner shows his inability on the said communication.

¶18

4. The learned Addl. Government Advocate hands over the copy of the said letter dated 13.11.2025 to the Advocate on record of the petitioner in course of the hearing.

¶19

5. Since the authorities have already taken a conscious decision declining to extend the time for execution of the agreement, the reliefs claimed in the instant writ petition becomes inappropriate.

¶20

6. The writ petition is hereby dismissed as become infructuous in view of the subsequent event. Since the copy of the said letter dated 13.11.2025 is communicated through the Advocate on Record of the petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to ventilate his grievance against the said order of rejection and forfeiture of all the deposits by initiating an appropriate proceeding before the competent Court.

¶21

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary Bichi Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 09-Apr-2026 13:51:04

¶24

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Kulamani Majhi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulamani Majhi 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasanta Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Madhusudhan Jena Vs State of Odisha

M/S.Dulhamani Sahoo, Bhubaneswar Vs Commissioner Ct and GST Odisha, Cuttack

M/S. Babamani Roadways and Borewells, Angul Vs Commissioner, GST and Central Excise, Rourkela

Sarat Kumar Samal Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., Khurda Vs the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack