IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.5330 of 2003 Sudhansu Sekhar Panda and others …. Petitioners Mr. Prasanta Kumar Tripathy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Saswat Das, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 10.07.2026 08. 1. On perusal of record, it appears that a Division Bench of this Court on 21st August, 2003 passed the following order in the instant matter: “Heard Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G. Rath, assisted by Mr. P. Acharya for opp. Party no.3 and Mr. Sovesh Roy, learned Advocate general for opp. Party nos.1, 2 and 4. For the reasons stated in our order passed today in W.P.(C) No.6314 of 2003, we vacate the interim order dated 30.07.2003 passed in M.C. No.5018 of 2003 and make it clear that notwithstanding the fact that we have entertained this writ petition, the election to Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation can only be called in question by an election petition presented to the authority and in the manner as provided in Sections 88 and 89 of the Orissa Municipal Corporation Act, 2003. Further, at the time of hearing of the writ petition we will keep in mind the provisions of Clauses (a) and (b) of Article 243ZG and will not entertain any matter which falls within the purview of the said Clauses (a) and (b) of the said Article 243ZG of the Constitution. No notice need be issued to the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation at this stage. As and when election to the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation is over, the petitioner may make a prayer to issue notice to the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, if necessary. List this matter after a month along with W.P.(C) No.6314 of 2003.” 1.1. It also appears from the record that a writ petition, bearing W.P.(C) No.6314 of 2003, tagged with the instant matter, having identical relief claimed, was disposed of on 22nd October, 2016 with the following order: “This matter is placed before the National Lok Adalat. None represented the petitioner. Learned counsel for opposite party-State is present. The prayer made in the writ petition pertains to quashing the notification dtd.14.5.2003 vide Annexure-3 whereby and whereunder the wards for Cuttack Municipality have been divided and seats have been reserved. The election pertains to the year 2003 and it has been affirmed that the tenure of elected body as per the Constitutional Provision is only for a period of five years and as such after lapse of five years from the year 2003, i.e. in the year 2008 the tenure of the elected body has itself expired and accordingly prayer made in the writ petition has lost its force due to efflux of time. Accordingly the writ petition is rendered as infructuous and disposed of as such.” 2. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, sought permission of this Court to allow him to withdraw this writ petition and filed a memo in Court. The said memo is taken on record. 3. In view of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in the light of aforesaid order dated 22nd October, 2016 passed in WP(C) No.6314 of 2003, leave is granted to the petitioner to withdraw this writ petition and, accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. (M.S. Raman) Judge Laxmikant Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER