Page 1 of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No. 364 of 2019 Anil Ku. Jena ..... Petitioner Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 22.07.2025 Order No. 02 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard. 3. This Review Petition has been filed seeking review of order dtd.16.10.2019 so passed in FAO No. 790 of 2018. 4. It is contended that the FAO so filed by the State, wherein claim of the Review Petitioner had been allowed by the Tribunal, was disposed of on the very first day of its listing in the light of the Judgment passed in the case of State of Odisha & Anr. Vs. Anup Kumar Senpati & Anr. without giving due opportunity of hearing to the Respondent in the appeal. 4.1. It is contended that since without giving due opportunity of hearing and without notice, the matter was disposed of in the light of the Judgment passed in the case of Anup Kumar Senapati, it is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that since the matter was found to be covered in the light Page 2 of 2. of the decision in the case of Anup Kumar Senapati, this Court disposed of the FAO vide order dtd.16.10.2019. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made and the fact that the appeal was disposed of on the very first day of its listing without giving due opportunity of hearing to the Review Petitioner, this Court is inclined to review the said order and while reviewing the same, set aside order dtd.16.10.2019. 7. Accordingly, the Review Petition stands allowed and disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha