M/S HIRAKUD INDUSTRIAL WORKS LTD. v. EAST COAST RAILWAY, BBSR
WP(C)/14664/2022 · 2025-05-09
S K Panigrahi
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 37490 (ORI) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 37490 (ORI) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.14664 of 2022
M/S. Hirakud Industrial Works Limited …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Krishnaraj Thaker, Sr. Adv. Along with Mr. Sahasransu Sourav, Adv -versus-
East Coast Railway, represented through its General Manager, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, DSGI Mr. S.K. Samantray, CGC Mr. P. Chidambaram, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Ashish Prasad, Adv. Mr. Koushik Anand Guru, Adv. Ms. Mukta Dutta, Adv. Mr. Debasish Mohapatra, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order No.
ORDER 09.05.2025
10.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Learned counsel for the parties are present. Judgment prepared in separate sheets is delivered and pronounced in open Court in the presence of learned counsel for the parties and the order is passed accordingly as follows:
3. In view of the above discussions, a cumulative reading of the agreements/ correspondences and keeping the settled principles Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-May-2025 15:56:18 Signature Not Verified p. 2 of law in mind as well as for the reasons given above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned action of the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 merits interference.
4. The Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 2 are directed to ensure that no party other than the Petitioner shall be permitted to utilize the private siding of the Petitioner Company at the Hirakud Sambalpur Railway Line hereon forth unless such permission is granted to the third party with consent of the Petitioner Company and in line with the terms, conditions and process laid down in the Private Siding Agreement dated 28.9.2005. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms.
5. Ordered accordingly. No order to costs.
6. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge B.Jhankar