p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No.5826 OF 2025 M/s. Ghanashyam Misra & Sons (P) LTD., Kolkata and another …. Petitioners Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, Senior Advocate Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Senior Advocate being assisted by Mr. Tarun Pattnaik, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Advocate General being assisted by Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, Additional Government Advocate (For Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3) Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, Deputy Solicitor General of India for Odisha being assisted by Mr. Satya Sindhu Kashyap, Senior Panel Counsel (For Opposite Party No.4) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA ORDER Order No. 07.05.2025 07. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Petitioners in this writ petition pray for the following reliefs:- “In the circumstances it is, therefore, prayed that Your Lordships be graciously pleased to pass the following reliefs; a. Declaration that the action of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 in reflecting the amount demanded vide notice dated 02.11.2022 as payable/dues in the i3ms portal maintained by the Department of Steel and Mines, Government of Odisha, thereby, preventing the issuance of transit permits in favour of the Petitioner Company in violation of the interim order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the Opposite Party No.l in RA No.22/07/2023 RC-1 as arbitrary and illegal; b. Issue a writ of mandamus to direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 to issue transit permits in favour of the Petitioner Company with respect to Gormahisani Iron Ore Block till the disposal of the Revisional Application (RA No.22/07/2023 RC-1) pending before the Opposite Party No.4; AND Pass any other consequential Order/Orders, Writ/Writs, direction/directions as deem fit and proper. Page 2 of 2 And for which act of kindness the Petitioners shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 3. Mr. Parija, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners submit that in the meantime RA No.22/07/2023 RC-I has already been dismissed by the Revisional Authority. Hence, they pray to withdraw the writ petition seeking liberty to file a fresh one with better particulars. 4. Mr. Acharya, learned Advocate General submits that on dismissal of the revision application, the writ petition has become infructuous. So, it should be dismissed as such. Question of granting liberty to file a fresh one with better particulars does not arise at all. 5. Considering the submission made by the learned Senior Advocates appearing for the Petitioners and learned Advocate General for the State-Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3, this Court is of the considered opinion that when the revision was dismissed during pendency of the writ petition when merit of the writ petition is yet to be examined and the Petitioners want to withdraw the writ petition seeking liberty to file a fresh one with better particulars, they should be granted such liberty. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn granting the liberty as sought for. 7. It is made clear that since a prayer is made for withdrawal of the writ petition seeking liberty to file a fresh one with better particulars, this Court has not delved into the merit of the writ petition. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (A.C. Behera) Binayak Judge