Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4849 (ORI)

KAMKALA MAJHI v. STATE OF ODISHA

WP(C)/8053/2026 · 2026-03-20

V Narasingh

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.8053 of 2026 Kamkala Majhi …. Petitioner Mr. A. Das, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha, represented by its Commissioner-cum- Secretary to Govt. of Odisha, Panchayati Raj & Drinking Water Department, Bhubaneswar 2. Collector & District Magistrate, Nabarangpur 3. CDO-cum-EO, Jilla Parishad, Nabarangpur 4. Block Development Officer, Jharigam Panchayat Samiti, Nabarangpur …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 20.03.2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner who is a Mate is non-payment as per of the final bill relating to construction of C.C. Road in Palasgam Gram Panchayat. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in view of Annexure-6, the final bill having been prepared by the Block Development p. 2 Officer, Jharigam Panchayat Samiti, Nabarangpur- Opposite Party No.4 and being counter signed by the Panchayat Samiti in question, inaction in the matter of payment gives rise to cause of action, to move this Court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that admittedly the Petitioner has not ventilated his grievance before the authorities. Hence, on that score alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Considering the rival submissions, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to move the Opposite Party No.2-Collector & District Magistrate, Nabarangpur ventilating his grievance relating to non-payment of the final bill within a period of four weeks hence enclosing the copy of the writ petition along with the order passed by this Court. 6. In the event such a representation is made, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to dispose of the same expeditiously after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. 7. It is needless to state that this Court has not expressed any view regarding the veracity of the claim in the writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Ayesha Judge