Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2016 DAILYLAW 1345 (ORI)

BIJAY KUMAR BISWAL v. STATE OF ODISHA

WP(C)/13388/2016 · 2026-06-24

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Writ Petition (Civil)body2016

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.13388 of 2016 Bijay Kumar Biswal …. Petitioner Mr. S. Rath, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 24.06.2026 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: - “The petitioner, therefore prays that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to issue a Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why:- i) the action of the Opp. Parties in taking decision for construction of two numbers of L.I. Point i.e. Tipuri-I and Tipuri-II under Serei G.P. shall be declared as illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable and liable to be quashed(Annexure-2); (ii) writ of mandamus shall be issued to the opp. Parties more especially the Opp. Party No.4 not to proceed for establishment of two numbers of L.I. Points as directed by the Opp. Party No.3 (Collector, Puri) for the greater interest of the farmers of the Serei G.P. at large and save public money including to save the livelihood of the petitioner. (iii) A writ of mandamus to the Opp. Parties directing them to take the said L.I. Point of the Petitioner on payment of adequate cost for livelihood of the petitioner. (iv) Any other Writ/Writs, Order/Orders, direction/directions as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that through highlighting his grievances, the petitioner has filed a representation vide Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition, but till date nothing has been done in the matter. In such background, he prays that a direction be issued to the Opposite Party No.5 to take a decision on the above noted petition within a specific time period. 5. Considering the submissions made and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court directs the Opposite Party No.5 to take a decision on the above noted representation in accordance with law taking into account the order passed by the Collector under Annexure-2, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and communicate the result of such exercise to the petitioner. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order along with Annexure-3 as well as Annexure-2 order before Opp. Party No.5 for compliance. 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev