IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4019 of 2026 Yarlagadda Sai Singhu & Anr. …. Petitioners Mr. B.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. along with Ms. M. Jesthi, Advocate -versus- The State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC Mr. B.K. Dash, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. S.R. Dash, Adv. for OPTCL CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 17.02.2026 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the aforesaid circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court shall graciously be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the Notification bearing No. 380-Western Zone-164 dated 27.02.2023, under Annexure-1 indicating transmission scheme to be undertaken in the diverted route as proposed shall not be quashed and set aside and if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make the said Rule NISI be made absolute; And further be pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to resort to the previously approved route as published in the office Gazette dated 30.07.2018; And pass any other order/orders, writ/writs, direction/directions, as the Hon'ble Court deem, fit and proper; And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray”. p. 2 p. 2 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that the impugned Notification under Annexure-1 was issued basing on the instruction given by the Collector, Sonepur-Opposite Party No.3. 4.1. It is further contended that even though such a Notification was issued on 27.02.2023 been behind the Petitioners, but Petitioners only came to know about the same, when they were issued with the notice by the Tahasildar vide notice dtd.15.12.2025 under Annexure-3. 4.2. It is further contended that on being noticed vide Annexure-3, Petitioners have already moved Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-4 with a request to alter the transmission line alignment so made, with issuance of the impugned Notification under Annexure-1. But Opposite Party No.3 is not taking any decision on such grievance of the Petitioners. 5. Mr. B.K. Dash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the OPTCL on the other hand contended that since the Petitioners have already moved Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-4, let Opposite Party No.3 be directed to take a decision on the same by giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners as well as the authorities of OPTCL. 6. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel also made similar submission. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court p. 3 p. 3 while disposing the Writ Petition directs Opposite Party No.3 to take a lawful decision on the grievance made by the Petitioners under Annexure-4 by giving due opportunity of hearing to one of the Petitioner and the authority of OPTCL. This Court directs Opposite Party No.3 to take a lawful decision within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioners are permitted to provide a copy of this order before Opposite Party No.3 for compliance within a period of seven (7) days hence. Till a decision is taken, operation of the Notification dtd.27.02.2023 under Annexure-1 be kept in abeyance. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat