IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.32496 of 2025 Ashok Kumar Pattanayak …. Petitioner Mr. N.M. Praharaj, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 19.11.2025 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned decision by order dated 23rd October, 2025 as at Annexure-5 of opposite party No.2 on the grounds stated. 3. Mr. Praharaj, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due procedure has not been followed in terms of Rule 38 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), hence, the order dated 23rd October, 2025 as per Annexure-5 in compliance of the Court’s direction issued in W.P.(C) No.18531 of 2025 is not legally tenable. The contention is that the authority concerned could not have followed Rule 48 of the Rules, thus, initiation of such an exercise in terms thereof with a direction to submit Form No.13 should not have been resorted to, hence, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-5 is liable to be quashed followed by a consequential direction to take up action in terms of Rule 38 thereof. 4. Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State, on the other hand, justifies the impugned decision of opposite party No.2 taking judicial notice of the prevailing situation as there is an auction holder in respect of the Hat at Tentuligaon, whereas, the petitioner belongs to village Beguniabani who demand a parallel Hat to run from another place. It is further submitted that opposite party No.2 directed the Sarpanch concerned to initiate all the process with a negotiation between the parties to create a peaceful environment in the whole GP and in the peculiar circumstances observed that in case, the bidder is likely to incur financial loss due to functioning of another Hat nearby may be accordingly compensated by such means which is mutually agreed between him and the Panchayat and hence, the entire exercise is in accordance with the law. 5. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that Rule 38 of the Rules should have been followed instead of inviting Form No.13, an exercise, which is in terms of the Rules of 1968, which is no more in vogue. Such a ground was never raised before opposite party No.2 at the time of hearing as revealed on a bare perusal of the impugned order i.e. Annexure-5. The submission of Mr. Praharaj, learned counsel for the petitioner is that a direction in W.P.(C) No.18531 of 2025 was for opposite party No.2 to consider and take a decision, which means, in accordance with the Rules but adopted a faulty procedure as was being followed under the old Rules. Page 3 of 3 6. Recording the submissions as above, since opposite party No.2 has proceeded further in compliance of the Court’s order in W.P.(C) No.18531 of 2025 and no such ground was raised and considered, the Court is of the view that the petitioner if so inclined to agitate the same before the said authority for a decision thereon and if necessary, to be followed by an order as per the Rules. The conclusion of the Court is that such a course action would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice and it may so happen that opposite party No.2 could modify the impugned order at Annexure-5 to reconcile the same with the Rules in place. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the observation as above. It is further directed that the petitioner shall make an application before opposite party No.2 for interim orders in view of the exigency which has arisen pursuant to Annexure-5 for appropriate orders as per law. 9. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Rojina Designation: Junior Stenographer