IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.8023 of 2023 Kishore Chandra Beura …. Petitioner Mr. B.S. Pradhan, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 09.04.2025 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.6 in spite of due appearance. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the notice dtd.15.02.2023 so issued by Opposite Party No.6. vide the said notice, Petitioner was directed to vacate the ‘Kalyan Mandap’ namely ‘Batakrushna Kalyan Mandap’ within a period of seven days from the date of notice, by cancelling the allotment so made in his favour. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that by virtue of the agreement executed in between the Petitioner and the Gram Panchayat on 07.03.2022 Petitioner was permitted to operate the ‘Kalyan Mandap’ for the period from 07.03.2022 to 07.03.2027. Petitioner though was allowed to remain in possession of the ‘Kalyan Mandap’ in question for the period from 07.03.2022 to 07.03.2027, on the face of such agreement executed on 07.03.2022 under Annexure-5, Petitioner could not have been issued with the impugned notice on 15.02.2023 under Annexure-1 with cancelation of the lease. 4.1. In course of hearing, it is however contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that agreement under Annexure-5 was executed in between the Petitioner and the Ex-Sarpanch on 07.03.2022 and Petitioner was leased out the ‘Kalyan Mandap’ for the period from 07.03.2022 to 07.03.2027. However, it is contended that the lease could not have been cancelled vide Annexure-1 notice without providing opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. 4.2. It is accordingly contended that the impugned notice is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also contended that by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court on 20.03.2023. Petitioner is continuing with the lease as on date. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the agreement available under Annexure-5 has been executed by the Ex-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat on 07.03.2022 as election to the post of Sarpanch and Ward Members in different Gram Panchayats in the State was held in the month of February, 2022. 5.1. In that view of the matter, it is the view of this Court that agreement executed on 07.03.2022 under Annexure-5 is not a valid agreement in the eye of law and Petitioner has got no right to continue in terms of the said agreement. However, considering the nature of the impugned notice and the fact that the lease has been cancelled without issuing any prior notice to the Petitioner, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition grants 4(four) weeks time to submit his reply to the impugned notice dtd.15.02.2023. On such submission of the reply, Opposite Party No.6 shall take a lawful decision on the same within a further period of four (4) weeks, with due communication to the Petitioner. Interim order passed on 20.03.2023 will continue till a decision is taken by Opposite Party No.6 as directed. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat