Disposed¶21

Ramaray Soren v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC16 Apr 2026WP(C)/8294/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Odisha High Court order directing Opposite Party No.2 (State authorities) to consider petitioner's representation at Annexure-2 in accordance with law within eight weeks; disposal on parity with disposed writ petition W.P.(C) No.20855 of 2025 (Ananta Narayan Mishra v. State of Odisha, order dated 01.08.2025); reference to Ritanjali Giri @ Paul v. State of Odisha, 2016 (I) ILR-1162; maxim that similar cases should be treated similarly subject to all just exceptions; petitioner Ramaray Soren v. State of Odisha & Ors.; no costs; web copy of order to be acted upon.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Opposite Party No.2 to consider the subject representation at Annexure-2 in accordance with law within eight weeks, including informing the Petitioner of the result of such consideration; no costs. ¶21

Ramaray Soren Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition, being substantially similar to a previously disposed writ petition (W.P.(C) No.20855 of 2025), should be disposed of by directing Opposite Party No.2 to consider the petitioner's representation at Annexure-2 in accordance with law.

¶17

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of directing Opposite Party No.2 to consider the subject representation at Annexure-2 in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks, which will include informing the Petitioner of the result of such consideration.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The answering Opposite Parties may solicit any information or documents from the Petitioner as required for taking a decision on the subject representation, but delay shall not be brooked under that guise.

¶22

Key takeaways

The court observed that it is a rule of adjudicatory process that similar cases should be treated similarly subject to all just exceptions.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WP(C) No.8294 of 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, A.K. Mohapatra, J., order dated 16.04.2026) disposed of on grounds of parity: petitioner's counsel submitted that the subject matter was substantially similar to W.P.(C) No.20855 of 2025 (Ananta Narayan Mishra v. State of Odisha), disposed of by the Coordinate Bench on 01.08.2025, and also cited Ritanjali Giri @ Paul v. State of Odisha (School & M.E. Deptt) & others, 2016 (I) ILR-1162. Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties did not dispute the position. Observing that similar cases should be treated similarly subject to all just exceptions, the court directed Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation at Annexure-2 in accordance with law within eight weeks and to inform the petitioner of the result; the answering Opposite Parties may solicit information or documents from the petitioner as needed, but delay shall not be brooked. No costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.8294 of 2026

Ramaray Soren

.....

Petitioner

Represented by Adv. - Sushree Sangita Pasayat

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶8

..... Opposite Parties

¶9

Represented by Adv. - Smt. S.Nayak, A.S.C.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

16.04.2026

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶16

Heard learned counsel appearing for Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for StateOpposite Parties.

¶17

The subject matter of this writ petition is substantially similar to one in W.P.(C) No.20855 of 2025 between Ananta Narayan Mishra v. State of Odisha disposed of by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 01.08.2025 and, therefore, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that her clients would be satisfied if a direction in terms of the said decision is passed on the representation at Annexure-2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also brings to the notice of this Court the decision in Ritanjali Giri @ Paul v. State of

¶18

Page 1 of 2.

¶19

Odisha (School & M.E. Deptt) & others, 2016 (I) ILR-1162 in support of her case.

¶20

Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for State-Opposite Parties does not dispute the position as asserted by learned counsel for the Petitioner. It is a rule of adjudicatory process that similar cases should be treated similarly subject to all just exceptions.

¶21

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing Opposite Party No.2 to consider the subject representation at Annexure-2 in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks, which will include informing the Petitioner the result of such consideration.

¶22

It is open to the answering Opposite Parties to solicit any information or documents from the side of the Petitioner, as required for taking a decision on the subject representation. However, in that guise delay shall not be brooked.

¶23