p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 17659 of 2025 Abhimanyu Pati ..…... Petitioner (s) Mr. Nishikanta Mishra, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ……. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gayana Ranjan Mahapatra, Adv. (for O.P.3) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 13.07.2026 Order No. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer: “Under the above fact and circumstance it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to consider the above fact and circumstance of this case and to admit this writ petition to call for the records, after hearing the parties issue writ in the nature of mandamus, and direct the Opp. Party No.3 to consider the petitioners application for building plan approval application and may direct the opp. Party no.3 to allow the application for the building plan approval application of the petitioner. “ Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:08:03 Signature Not Verified p. 2 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has filed an application seeking approval of the building plan in respect of Plot No. 1214/3080 under Mouza-Siula, Pipili Tahasil, District Puri. He further submits that the said application is still pending consideration before the competent authority. 5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.3/Authorized Officer, Bhubaneswar Development Authority submits that the show cause notice was issued by the Opposite Party No.3 on the ground that the Petitioner’s plot is affected by the proposed 300 feet Development Plan Road. Hence, the Petitioner’s application for building approval plan cannot be approved. 6. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.3 further submits that the Petitioner's application for approval of the building plan has been rejected on 15.05.2025. He further contends that the Petitioner has alternative remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 18(1) of the O.D.A. Act, 1982 against the said order. He further submits that, instead of availing the statutory remedy, the Petitioner has approached this Court. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was never communicated the order rejecting his application for approval of the building plan and he had no knowledge of such rejection. He further submits that in the Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:08:03 Signature Not Verified p. 3 absence of any communication regarding the rejection, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to expedite the process of approval of the building plan. 8. Be that as it may, the Petitioner is permitted to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 18(1) of the Odisha Development Authorities (ODA) Act within a period of two weeks from today. If there is any delay in filing the appeal an appropriate petition to be filed for condonation of delay and the same shall be condoned taking a liberal view of the matter, as there is deficit of communication in intimating the rejection of the Petitioner’s application. 9. In the meantime, the Petitioner shall approach the Opposite Party No.3 and obtain the certified copy of the aforesaid rejection order and prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority within the time stipulated hereinabove. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 1. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu Designation: P.A.