IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21382 of 2026 M/s. Laxmi Exports, D No. -6-18-3/lC, LIG Plot No. 4, Beside Sai Sadan Apartment, East Point Colony, Chinawaltair, Visakhapatnam 02 Andhra Pradesh …. Petitioner Represented by Adv. Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Represented by Adv. Ms. Biswabara Dash, Addl. Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 21.07.2026 01. 1. The show cause notice was issued upon the Petitioner for premature termination of a lease of a Dankari BSQ No.5 situated at village Dankari, Tahasil-Dharmasala, Dist.-Jajpur, Odisha, on the ground that the lease area falls within the proposed boundary of the Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR Project), which is of national importance. Though the Petitioner raised an objection in the reply to the said show cause notice, but during personal hearing, the Petitioner consented to the premature termination of the lease, which is lucidly and explicitly recorded in the impugned office order dated 26.08.2025. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed alleging that the Petitioner never consented for premature termination of the said lease. Once an event that transpired during the course of a hearing is recorded by a statutory authority or a Court in its final order, such recording is ordinarily regarded as sacrosanct. Apart from this, the Petitioner did not raise any objection after the order was so received before the authority that there has been a wrong recording of an event happened in the Court and have approached this Court challenging the same order. We are reminded of the oft-quoted observations of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr. reported in AIR 1982 SC 1249, wherein the Apex Court has held that if the litigant finds an incorrect recording of an event in course of a hearing, the proper course is to approach the same authority which recorded such event. It would be profitable to quote the illuminating observations of the Apex Court which runs thus: “4. … If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the judges, to call attention of the very judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error (Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhusudan v. Chanderwati, A.I.R. 1917 P.C. 30). That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an Appellate Court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment.” 3. In view of the exposition of law laid down in the above noted decision, we do not find any justification in interfering with the order passed by the authority, recording the concession made by the Petitioner in course of the hearing, despite the objection having filed in pursuance of the show cause notice issued to him. 4. The Writ Petition is, hence, disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Bijay/Sarbani Designation: Junior Stenographer