IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.764 of 2025 Ramachandra Satapathy and others …. Appellants Represented by Adv.– Ms. Saswati Mohapatra, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Respondents Represented by Adv.– Mr. Bimbisar Dash, A.G.A. CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 13.05.2025 01. 1. Though Ms. Saswati Mohapatra, learned counsel filed the instant appeal on behalf of the appellants having not appeared before the single Bench, we directed her to intimate the learned counsel, who appeared before the single Bench in the writ petition on the day when the impugned order was passed. 2. Mr. Abhilash Mishra, learned counsel, who appeared before the single Bench, submits that though the prayer for withdrawal was made, but there was no instruction which he received from his clients. 3. We could have proceeded to interfere with the order, but our attention is drawn to a judgment of the apex Court rendered in case of State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, AIR 1982 SC 1249, wherein in an identical situation, the apex Court held that in the event, there is a wrong recording or a mis- recording or the recording which is not substantiated by the proper reasons, it would be proper for the litigant to approach the same learned Judge before the event fades from his memory. 4. The order impugned in the instant appeal is passed on 20th March, 2025 and, therefore, of a recent origin and we do not think that the learned single Judge has forgotten what has happened on the said date. In view of the ratio of law laid down in the above- noted decision, we permit the appellants to approach the same learned Judge who passed the impugned order flagging an issue which is raised in the instant appeal. 5. Though we respect the sentiments of the learned single Judge on the wastage of the valuable time of the Court, but considering the other facet of the issue, we feel the imposition of cost is too burdensome and, therefore, the portion of the impugned order in which the cost is imposed is hereby set aside. 6. Liberty is granted to the appellants to approach the same learned Judge within one week after reopening of the Court following the Summer Vacation, 2025. 7. The writ appeal is thus disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge S.K. Guin/PA Designation: Personal Assistant