Disposed¶32

Ramakanta Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC19 Mar 2026WP(C)/6708/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ramakanta Nayak v. State of Odisha; W.P.(C) No. 6708 of 2026; High Court of Orissa; kiosk allotment; street vendor; Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation; Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014; Article 19(1)(g); right to livelihood; representation dated 21.02.2026; amendment of pleadings allowed (I.A. No.5204 of 2026); writ petition disposed of; direction to consider grievance sympathetically before final allotment; no other source of livelihood.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Commissioner of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (Opposite Party No.3) to consider the Petitioner's grievance sympathetically before the final allotment of the kiosk is made, the Petitioner having no other source of livelihood; pending I.As., if any, disposed of. ¶32

Ramakanta Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the prayer for amendment of the pleadings made in I.A. No.5204 of 2026 should be allowed in W.P.(C) No. 6708 of 2026. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The prayer for amendment of the pleadings in I.A. No.5204 of 2026 was allowed, the Court considering the amendment essential for just adjudication and not such as to change the nature and character of the lis.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The I.A. stood disposed of and the consolidated writ petition incorporating the amendment was taken on record.

¶20

Key takeaways

The writ petition was disposed of, calling upon the Commissioner of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, BMC, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.3) to consider the Petitioner's grievance.ratio¶32
The Petitioner's grievance was to be considered sympathetically before the final allotment of the kiosk is made, since the Petitioner has no other source of livelihood.ratio¶32
In view of the disposal of the writ petition, pending I.As., if any, also stand disposed of.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.P.(C) No. 6708 of 2026 (V. Narasingh, J.), order dated 19.03.2026 — Ramakanta Nayak v. State of Odisha & others. (i) I.A. No.5204 of 2026 praying amendment of the pleadings allowed: the amendment was held essential for just adjudication and not to change the nature and character of the lis; the consolidated amended writ petition was taken on record. (ii) The Petitioner's grievance was non-allotment of a kiosk by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation; after BMC published a notice purportedly under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 inviting objections to the allotments made therein, the Petitioner filed a representation dated 21.02.2026 which drew no action, and he apprehended a prejudicial allotment decision without hearing him, invoking Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner, BMC (Opposite Party No.3) to consider the Petitioner's grievance sympathetically before the final allotment is made, the Petitioner having no other source of livelihood; pending I.As. were disposed of accordingly.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 6708 of 2026

¶2

Ramakanta Nayak

¶3

Petitioner

¶4

Mr. S.C. Puspalaka, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1. State of Odisha …. Opposite Parties represented through the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Govt. of Odisha, Bhubaneswar

¶7

2. The Secretary of Bhubaneswar Development Authority, BDA, Bhubaneswar

¶8

3. The Commissioner of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, BMC, Bhubaneswar

¶9

4. The Chief Executive officer, Bhubaneswar Smart City Ltd, Bhubaneswar

¶10

5. Kahnu Charan Senapati

¶11

Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA

¶12

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER 19.03.2026

¶13

Order No.

¶14

I.A. No.5204 of 2026

¶15

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and

¶16

learned counsel for the State.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

Taking into account the recitals in the I.A. and the submissions made by the Petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the amendment of the pleadings as prayed for is essential for just adjudication and it does not change the nature and character of lis. Hence, the prayer for amendment is allowed.

¶19

Accordingly, the I.A. Stands disposed of.

¶20

Consolidated writ petition incorporating the amendment is taken on record.

¶21

(V. Narasingh) Judge

¶22

W.P.(C) No.6708 of 2026

¶23

Order No.

¶24

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶26

Non allotment of a kiosk by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation in essence is the grievance of the writ petitioner.

¶27

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation has published a notice purported to be in exercise of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 inviting objections regarding the allotments made therein.

¶28

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that ventilating his grievance the Petitioner

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

has filed a representation dated 21.02.2026, but no action is being taken and he has reasonable apprehension that without considering his grievance as ventilated, the authorities may take a decision of allotment of kiosk which will prejudicially affect him. Hence, intervention of this Court is sought inter alia on the ground that the inaction on the part of the authorities is not only violative of his right to livelihood but also an infraction of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

¶31

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the Petitioner without pursuing his remedy have rushed to this Court. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be rejected.

¶32

Considering the rival submission, the writ petition stands disposed of calling upon the Commissioner of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, BMC, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.3 to consider the grievance of the Petitioner sympathetically before final allotment shall made, since it is stated that the Petitiner has no other source of livelihood,.

¶33

In view of disposal of writ petition, pending I.As., if any, also stand disposed of.

¶34

Signature Not Verified (V. Narasingh) Digitally Signed Judge

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 20-Mar-2026 19:52:50

¶36

Ayesha

¶37

Page 3 of 3

Ramakanta Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakanta Nayak 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabir Kumar Biswal Vs M/S. B.G. Road Lines

Suresh Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Pravanjan Beura Vs Shrabani Priyadarshini Malla@Beura

Sujata Sa Vs State of Odisha

Madhusudan Naik Vs State

Nilamadhab Sa Vs State of Odisha