Ayush Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC2 Feb 2026WP(C)/911/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: correction of judgment; typographical error; ministerial error; inadvertent and bonafide mistake; read conjointly; certified copy correction; paragraph-9; Excise Commissioner, Odisha; Collector, Khordha; 17.06.2025; 03.01.2026; judgment dated 2nd February 2026; I.A. No.2639 of 2026; W.P.(C) No.911 of 2026; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Harish Tandon; M.S. Raman; Debashis Tripathy AGA; Ayush Sahu; State of Odisha.

What did the court decide?

Correction of the judgment dated 2nd February, 2026 directed: in paragraph-9 thereof, the date “17.06.2025” to be read as “03.01.2026” and the words “Collector, Khordha” to be read as “Excise Commissioner, Odisha”; the order to be read conjointly with the judgment and necessary corrections to be made in certified copies already issued ¶¶22

Ayush Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the typographical and/or ministerial error in the judgment dated 2nd February, 2026 — recording the impugned order as dated 17.06.2025 and passed by the Collector, Khordha, instead of dated 03.01.2026 and passed by the Excise Commissioner, Odisha — should be corrected

¶¶16

Court's answer

In view of the stand that the mistake was ministerial, the date “17.06.2025” appearing in the 1st line of paragraph-9 of the judgment dated 2nd February, 2026 shall be read as “03.01.2026”

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

The words “Collector, Khordha” appearing in the 1st and 2nd lines of paragraph-9 of the judgment shall be read as “Excise Commissioner, Odisha”

¶¶20

Key takeaways

This order shall be read conjointly with the judgment dated 2nd February, 2026, and where a certified copy of the judgment has already been issued, necessary correction shall be made therein in the light of this orderratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.P.(C) No.911 of 2026 — I.A. No.2639 of 2026 (correction application) disposed of on 12.02.2026. The judgment dated 2nd February, 2026 had, by inadvertent and bonafide mistake, recorded the impugned order — actually dated 03.01.2026 and passed by the Excise Commissioner, Odisha — as dated 17.06.2025 and passed by the Collector, Khordha. On the Additional Government Advocate's concession that the mistake was ministerial, the Court directed that in paragraph-9 of the judgment the date “17.06.2025” be read as “03.01.2026” and the words “Collector, Khordha” be read as “Excise Commissioner, Odisha”; the order is to be read conjointly with the judgment, and necessary corrections are to be made in certified copies already issued. Bench: Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.S. Raman.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.911 of 2026

¶3

Ayush Sahu …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Biraja Prasanna Das, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Debashis Tripathy, AGA

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

¶11

Order No.

¶12

¶13

I.A. No.2639 of 2026

¶14

ORDER 12.02.2026

¶15

This is an application for correction of the typographical and/or ministerial error crept in the judgment dated 2^nd February, 2026.

¶16

It is indicated that while quashing and setting aside the impugned order, due to inadvertent and bonafide mistake, the date of the impugned order, which is “03.01.2026”, it has been wrongly recorded as “17.06.2025”. It is further indicated that said impugned order dated 03.01.2026 was passed by the Excise Commissioner, Odisha and, therefore, the said order having shown to have been passed by the Collector, Khordha, needs correction.

¶17

Learned Additional Government Advocate fairly submits that such mistake is ministerial as the challenge in the said writ petition was made to the order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the Excise Commissioner, Odisha.

¶18

In view of such stand, let the date “17.06.2025” appearing in the 1^st line of paragraph-9 of the judgment be read as “03.01.2026”. Simultaneously, the words “Collector, Khordha”

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

appearing in the 1^st and 2^nd line of paragraph-9 of the judgment be read as “Excise Commissioner, Odisha”.

¶21

Let this order be read conjointly with the judgment dated 2^nd February, 2026. In the event, certified copy of the judgment has already been issued, necessary correction shall be made therein in the light of the order passed hereinabove.

¶22

Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.

¶23

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶24

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶25

MRS/Laxmikant

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Feb-2026 19:56:39

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Ayush Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayush Sahu 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

Citizens Action Forum, Bbsr Vs State of Odisha

Shek Abutehara Vs Shantilata Mishra

Shree Venketesh Construction and Co, Sambalpur Vs Union of India

M/S. Shree Bharat Motors Limited, Bhubaneswar Vs the Chief Commissioner of Ct and Gst, Odisha, Cuttack

Pulak Nanda Vs Superintendent, Dhenkanal Range

M/S M. B. Associates, Kendujhar Vs Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Cuttack