Orissa High Court
WP(C)/3081/2021 on 2 February, 2021
W.P.(C) No.3081 OF 2021
02 02.02.2021 The matter is taken up through video
conferencing mode.
Heard Mr. S.R. Mulia, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Sahoo, learned Additional Standing
Counsel.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition
challenging the notice of eviction dated 05.01.2021
under Annexure-1 issued by opposite party no.2
directing the petitioner to remove the cabin/shop by
31.01.2021 otherwise the IDCO authority will not be
held responsible for any damage.
Mr. S.R. Mulia, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that while issuing notice of eviction, opposite
party no.2 has not complied with the provisions
contained in Section 36 of IDCO Act by giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore,
issuance of notice is contrary to the provisions of law.
Mr. Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel
contended that notice of eviction has been issued by
following due procedure of law.
Considering the contentions raised by learned
counsel for the parties and after going through the
records, this Court is not inclined to issue notice to
opposite party no.2. However, since Section 36 of the
IDCO Act has not been complied with while issuing
impugned notice, this writ petition is disposed of with
the direction that any notice of eviction if issued, the
same shall be by following due procedure and in
compliance of the provisions contained in Section 36 of
the IDCO Act.
With the above observation and direction, the writ
petition is disposed of.
...............................
(DR. B.R. SARANGI) Alok JUDGE