p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 6708 of 2026 Ramakanta Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. S.C. Puspalaka, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha represented through the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Govt. of Odisha, Bhubaneswar 2. The Secretary of Bhubaneswar Development Authority, BDA, Bhubaneswar 3. The Commissioner of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, BMC, Bhubaneswar 4. The Chief Executive officer, Bhubaneswar Smart City Ltd, Bhubaneswar 5. Kahnu Charan Senapati …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 19.03.2026 I.A. No.5204 of 2026 02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. p. 2 2. Taking into account the recitals in the I.A. and the submissions made by the Petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the amendment of the pleadings as prayed for is essential for just adjudication and it does not change the nature and character of lis. Hence, the prayer for amendment is allowed. 3. Accordingly, the I.A. Stands disposed of. 4. Consolidated writ petition incorporating the amendment is taken on record. (V. Narasingh) Judge Order No. W.P.(C) No.6708 of 2026 03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Non allotment of a kiosk by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation in essence is the grievance of the writ petitioner. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation has published a notice purported to be in exercise of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 inviting objections regarding the allotments made therein. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that ventilating his grievance the Petitioner p. 3 has filed a representation dated 21.02.2026, but no action is being taken and he has reasonable apprehension that without considering his grievance as ventilated, the authorities may take a decision of allotment of kiosk which will prejudicially affect him. Hence, intervention of this Court is sought inter alia on the ground that the inaction on the part of the authorities is not only violative of his right to livelihood but also an infraction of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the Petitioner without pursuing his remedy have rushed to this Court. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 6. Considering the rival submission, the writ petition stands disposed of calling upon the Commissioner of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, BMC, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.3 to consider the grievance of the Petitioner sympathetically before final allotment shall made, since it is stated that the Petitiner has no other source of livelihood,. 7. In view of disposal of writ petition, pending I.As., if any, also stand disposed of. (V. Narasingh) Judge Ayesha