IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 2304 of 2011 Smt. Anjali Jena ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranjan Kumar Rout, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ……. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Adv. (for O.P.2) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 19.09.2025 Order No. 11. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the action of the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 in evicting her husband from his possession over the open space no.3 inside the old bus stand, Bhubaneswar. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that pursuant to the allotment letter dated 01.06.2001, the husband of the Petitioner had allotted a piece of open space No.3 inside the old bus stand, Bhubaneswar. The Petitioner’s husband installed a cabin on the said allotted space and used to carry on business of selling books and Magazines. He was paying rent regularly for possession of the said space. Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Sep-2025 19:21:25 Signature Not Verified 2 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the allotted open space was found insufficient for the purpose of the business for which the Petitioner’s husband had occupied further open space around the Book stall. Such encroachment was regularized by the Opposite Party No.2 vide letter No.31545 OSRTC/30.12.2004 whereby total monthly rent was fixed at Rs.276/-. He further submits that due to financial stringency, he could not pay the rent of the said space since 2009 onwards. Thereafter, notice dated 17.07.2010 was given by the OSRTC for eviction from the encroached space. 6. Learned counsel for the OSRTC submits that the eviction process has already been over. Hence, the prayer made in the present Writ Petition is devoid of merit. 7. In such view of the matter and considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, since the eviction process has already been over, the prayer made by the present Petitioner does not exist. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu Designation: Personal Assistant