SHREE VENKETESH CONSTRUCTION AND CO.,SAMBALPUR v. UNION OF INDIA
WP(C)/3329/2026 · 2026-02-23
Harish Tandon Cj, Murahari Sri Raman
Writ Petition (Civil)body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2995 (ORI) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2995 (ORI) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 3329 of 2026
Shree Venketesh Construction & Co., represented through its Proprietor, K. Iswar Rao …. Petitioner Mr. Krushna Chandra Dash, Advocate -versus- Union of India and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, Deputy Solicitor General of India
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Order No.
ORDER 23.02.2026
01.
1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayers:
“In the above premises, it is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to consider the fact stated in this writ application, admit the same, issue notices/rule nisi to the Opp. Parties, calling upon them to file show cause as to why the prayer made in this writ petition shall not be allowed. And in the event, the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause then the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to make the rule absolute and this writ application may be allowed, thereby the impugned order dtd.16.01.2026 under Annexure-1 so
far as it relates to additional punishment, illegally debarring petitioner to participate in future tender/bid for two years in Kharagpur Railway Division may be quashed. And further a writ of mandamus be issued, directing the Opp. Parties more particularly the OP-4 to allow petitioner to participate in any future tender/bid in the said Division. And/or pass such other order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice and equity. And for this he shall ever pray.”
2. Mr. Krushna Chandra Dash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has filed a memo stating therein that the petitioner does not want to proceed with the instant case and seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition.
3. Leave is granted.
4. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman) Judge
S. Behera Designation: Senior Stenographer