p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.264 of 2026 OMM Baba Sanideb WSHG … Appellant Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others … Respondents Ms. Biswabara Dash, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 09.03.2026 01. 1. The writ petition filed by the appellant is disposed of by the Single Bench vide judgment dated 30th January, 2026 in the following:- <13. The impugned Letter/Order No.69 dated 03.01.2026 vide Annexure-9 issued/passed by the Opp. Party No.4(Collector, Bhadrak) relating to the elimination/exclusion of the name of the petitioner-WSHG as a paddy procurement society/agency of Basudevpur Block for KMS 2025-26 is quashed except the tagging up of the registered farmers of the petitioner-WSHG with the Opp. Party No.6-WSHG. 14. The Opp. Party No.4 (Collector, Bhadrak) is directed to consider the matter relating to the elimination/exclusion of the name of the petitioner as a paddy procurement society/agency of Basudevpur Block for KMS 2025-26 afresh and to take fresh decision on the same after issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioner-WSHG providing the petitioner-WSHG an opportunity for filing of its reply against the show-cause as well as after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner-WSHG and others, if any, in full compliance with the principles of natural justice clarifying that, the tagging up of the registered farmers of the petitioner-WSHG with the Opp. Party No.6-WSHG for the procurement of the paddy for KMS 2025-26 indicated in Annexure-9 is remained undisturbed/ unaltered. Page 2 of 3 It is made clear here that, if in the fresh decision of the Opp. Party No.4 (Collector, Bhadrak), it is found that, the alleged grounds for elimination/exclusion of the name of the petitioner- WSHG indicated in Para No.4 of this Judgment are false, then, the petitioner-WSHG is at liberty to claim compensation for unnecessary harassments on the basis of the alleged false allegations against the erring persons/officials those had alleged such false allegations.= 2. It is apparent from the above quoted observations that the principal relief sought for by the appellant has already been allowed as the order excluding/eliminating the appellant as paddy procurement society/agency of Basudevpur Block for KMS 2025-26 is quashed and set aside. Since the authorities have flagged certain deficiencies, the liberty was granted to the authorities to proceed by following procedure of law, more particularly adherence of principles of natural justice. 3. The appellant challenged the said order as no liberty can be granted by the Court. But, in course of the hearing, it is informed to the Court that in compliance to the said direction, a show-cause notice was issued upon the appellant and in fact the appellant submitted the reply. However, the appellant is not aware of any order having passed by the authority to the proceeding initiated on the basis of the said show-cause notice. Since the appellant has already submitted the reply, the interference with the order becomes unwarranted. 4. Since no right has been adjudicated as such, we do not find any justification in interfering with the impugned judgment in the instant writ appeal. We simply observe that the authority shall communicate the decision taken on the basis of the said show-cause notice to the appellant at the earliest, in the event the same has already been taken. If the authority has not taken any decision, it is p. 3 requested to take a decision within two weeks from the date of communication of this order and it goes without saying that the said order shall be communicated to the appellant immediately. 5. With the aforesaid order, the writ appeal stands disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Designation: Senior Stenographer