IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21051 of 2026 Kedar Chandra Mishra …. Petitioner Ms. M. Sethi, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC COROM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 14.07.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard Ms. M. Sethi, learned counsel for Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition, issue Rule NISI, calling upon the opp. parties to show cause as to why the order passed by the Director of Estate Bhubaneswar Opp.party No. 2 passed in OPP Appeal case No. 16/2026(Q) vide order dated 24.06.2026 under Annexure-6 and the letter No. 3557, dated 02.07.2026 issued by the Opp.party No. 3 under Annexure-7 shall not quashed and if the Opp.parties failed to show cause or show in sufficient cause to make the said Rule absolute. p. 2 p. 2 And further be pleased to direct the opp. parties to allow the petitioner to stay in the Qr. No. No.10/1, Type VR, Unit-III, Ps-Kharabela Nagar, Bhubaneswar till final disposal of the writ petition or in the alternative subject to result of the issue pending vie Wp(c) No. 3163/2022 and Wp(c) 25471/2022 for the greater interest of justice. And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions would be deem fit and proper as facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. It is contended that without proper appreciation of the Petitioner’s claim and during pendency of two Writ Petitions at the instance of the Petitioner, he has been directed to vacate the quarter so allotted in his favour vide order dated 26.10.2021. 4.1. It is contended that initially when the Rent Officer passed the order under Annexure-4 directing the Petitioner to vacate the quarter, Petitioner moved the Appellate Authority by filing OPP Appeal Case No.16 of 2026 (Q). But the Appellate Authority- Opp. Party No.2 also without proper appreciation rejected the appeal vide the impugned order dated 24.06.2026 under Annexure-2. 4.2. However, in course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner is ready and willing to vacate the quarter suo motu, if he will be allowed one (1) month of time. p. 3 p. 3 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel has no serious objection to the course of action proposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 6. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Parties, this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition without interfering with the impugned order, permits the Petitioner to remain in occupation of the quarter till 15th August, 2026. 6.1. Petitioner is directed to file an undertaking in that regard before Opp. Party No.2. On receipt of such undertaking along with copy of this order Petitioner be allowed to remain in occupation in quarter till 15th August, 2026. 6.2. However, if Petitioner does not vacate the quarter suo motu as undertaken by 15th August, 2026, Authorities will be free to take appropriate action for eviction of the Petitioner from the quarter, without issuing any fresh notice in that regard. 7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Jyoti