Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8512 (ORI)

SUBHRANSU SEKHAR NAYAK v. STATE OF ODISHA

WP(C)/3668/2026 · 2026-02-24

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3668 of 2026 Subhransu Sekhar Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. B. Sahoo, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA COROM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 24.02.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for Petitioner and learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the present writ petition, issue rule nisi in the nature of mandamus or any other writ/writs, calling upon the opp. Parties specifically opp. Party no.3 to show cause as to why the representations filed by the petitioner under Annexure-2 shall not be considered with the touch stone of law and spirit; And in the event if the opp. Parties specifically opp. Party no.3 failed to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said rule be made absolute and the representations filed by the petitioner under Annexure-2 be considered with the touch stone of law and spirit; p. 2 p. 2 And may pass any other order(s), relief(s), direction(s) as deemed fit and proper. And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner state that highlighting his grievances, the Petitioner has made a representation to Opposite Party No.3 vide Annexure-2 and the same may be directed to be considered within a stipulated time, to which learned Counsel for the State has no objection. 5. As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the Writ Petition directing Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-2 in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Jyoti