Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2026 DAILYLAW 320 (ORI)

KAVI SANGRAM KESHARI SATPATHY v. STATE OF ODISHA

WP(C)/189/2026 · 2026-01-19

Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page 1 of 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.189 of 2026 Kavi Sangram Keshari Satpathy and others ..... Petitioners Represented by Adv. – Ms. Bijayalaxmi Sahoo -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Party Represented by Adv. – Mr. D.K. Sahu, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 19.01.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Ms. Bijaylaxmi Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for Petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for State-Opposite Parties. 3. The subject matter of this writ petition is substantially similar to one in W.P.(C) No.20855 of 2025 between Ananta Narayan Mishra v. State of Odisha disposed of by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 01.08.2025 and, therefore, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that her clients would be satisfied if a direction in terms of the said decision is passed on the representation at Annexure-2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners also brings to the notice Page 2 of 2. of this Court the decision in Ritanjali Giri @ Paul v. State of Odisha (School & M.E. Deptt) & others, 2016 (I) ILR-1162 in support of her case. 4. Mr. D.K. Sahu, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for State-Opposite Parties does not dispute the position as asserted by learned counsel for the Petitioners. It is a rule of adjudicatory process that similar cases should be treated similarly subject to all just exceptions. 5. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing Opposite Party No.2 to consider the subject representation at Annexure-2 in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks, which will include informing the Petitioners the result of such consideration. 6. It is open to the answering Opposite Parties to solicit any information or documents from the side of the Petitioners, as required for taking a decision on the subject representation. However, in that guise delay shall not be brooked. 7. Now, no costs Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis