Disposed¶24

Trinath Sahoo v. Superintendent of Police, Nayagarh

Orissa HC9 Jan 2026WP(C)/388/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Release of detained vehicle; Tipper OD-02-BY-9747; detention by Phandi-in-Charge, Rajsunakhala Police Station and Mining Officer, Nayagarh; direction to approach detaining authorities with required documents within ten days; release 'as per law'; writ petition disposed of; recourse to primary/executive remedy before writ relief; Odisha; vehicle seizure/mining-related detention.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Petitioner to approach Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 4 with all required documents within ten days, whereafter Opposite Party No. 2 to consider the grievance and release the vehicle as per law; Writ Petition disposed of accordingly. ¶24

Trinath Sahoo Vs Superintendent of Police, Nayagarh — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 388 of 2026

¶3

Trinath Sahoo

¶4

..…... Petitioner(s)

¶5

Mr. Braja Mohan Sarangi, Adv.

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Superintendent of Police, Nayagarh & Ors. ……. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, AGA

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

ORDER

09.01.2026

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶15

In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner being the owner of the vehicle in question bearing registration No.OD-02-BY-9747 (Tipper) has sought for a direction from this Court to the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 4 for releasing the said vehicle which has been detained by the Phandi-in-Charge, Rajsunakhala Police Station/Opposite Party No.2 and the Mining Officer, Nayagarh/Opposite Party No.4.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State, at the outset, submits that in order to redress his grievance the Petitioner instead of preferring this Writ Petition should have approached the Phandi-in-Charge,

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 10-Jan-2026 14:42:32

¶20

¶21

Rajsunakhala Police Station/ Opposite Party No.2 at the threshold of the matter.

¶22

At this juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for granting permission to the Petitioner to do so.

¶23

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and looking to the factual scenario of the case, this Court directs the Petitioner to approach the Phandi-in-Charge, Rajsunakhala Police Station/Opposite Party No.2 and the Mining Officer, Nayagarh/Opposite Party No.4 along with all the required documents for release of his vehicle in question within a period of ten days hence. In such event, the Opposite Party No.2 shall look into the grievance of the Petitioner and release the above noted vehicle of the Petitioner as per law.

¶24

This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶25

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶26

Murmu

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 10-Jan-2026 14:42:32

Trinath Sahoo v. Superintendent of Police, Nayagarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trinath Sahoo v. Superintendent of Police, Nayagarh

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 Swain Vs State of Odisha

Laxmidhar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Asish Kumar Rout Vs Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur

Sabita Mahato Vs Union of India

Pushpanjali Nanda Vs State of Odisha

Ajaya Sahoo@Ajaya Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha