Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16575 (ORI)

NIRUPAMA MAJHI v. STATE OF ODISHA

WP(C)/15808/2026 · 2026-05-20

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15808 of 2026 Nirupama Majhi …. Petitioner Mr. S.S. Dash, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 20.05.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “The Petitioner therefore most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: a) Admit the writ petition; b) Issue notice to the Opposite Parties; c) Call for the records; d) Issue appropriate writ/writs directing the Opposite Parties to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-6 within a stipulated period; e)Further direct the Opposite Parties to sympathetically consider transfer/posting of the Petitioner to Anandapur or any nearby Health Institution nearer to her hometown on child care, spouse, medical, and compassionate grounds in terms of Government Resolution No. 14151/Gen dated 06.08.1986, and Resolution No. 17873 dated 07-06-2013 and letter of NRHM odisha vide letter no 8036 Dt 12-06-2013. f) Pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that highlighting his grievance, Petitioner has made a representation to Opposite Party No.3 vide Annexure-6 and the same may be directed to be considered within a stipulated time, to which learned Counsel for the State has no objection. 5. As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the Writ Petition directing Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation filed by the Petitioner vide Annexure-6 within a period of three (3) months in accordance with law from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat