Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Flexi Infrastructure Projects Ltd vs State Of Odisha And Others on 24 January, 2024

Bench: B.R. Sarangi, Murahari Sri Raman

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               W.P.(C) No. 1306 of 2024

Flexi Infrastructure Projects Ltd.,     .....                                  Petitioner
Jamshedpur
                                                           Mr. Susanta Kumar Dash, Adv.
                                        Vs.
State of Odisha and others              .....                                Respondents
                                                                  Mr. P.K. Muduli, AGA

               CORAM:
                   ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI
                   MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

                                               ORDER

24.01.2024 Order No. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

01.

2. Heard Mr. Susanta Kumar Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the Collector, Keonjhar under Annexure-13, by which the grievance made by the petitioner vide Annexure-9 has been rejected in pursuance of the order dated 23.06.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 17645 of 2023.

4. Mr. Susanta Kumar Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Collector, Keonjhar has not considered the grievance of the petitioner, which has been made vide Annexure-9, taking into account the provisions contained under Rule 8(4) read with Rule-64 of the OMMC Rules. Thereby, there is gross error apparent on the face of the record while disposing of the grievance of the petitioner under Annexure-9. More so, while disposing of such application, the Collector has not adhered to the rules. Thereby, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

5. Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties vehemently contended that Page 1 of 3 the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 17645 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.06.2023, directing the authority to consider the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-9. But fact remains, whether Annexure-9 contemplates that the Collector has to consider the matter in view of Rule-8(4) read with Rule-64 of the OMMC Rules. If such a contention has not been raised there, then the order passed by the Collector is well justified, which should not be interfered with.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 17645 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.06.2023, directing the authority to the following effect:-

"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.2 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-9, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order."

7. While disposing of the writ petition, this Court passed order, as mentioned above, directing the authority to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. In accordance with law means, the Collector has to consider the representation of the petitioner adhering the rules contained under the OMMC Rules. But, without adhering the rules, the order dated 23.08.2023 so passed by the Collector under Annexure-13, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Collector, Keonjhar Page 2 of 3 to reconsider the grievance made by the petitioner under Annexure-9 taking into account the provisions contained under Rule 8(4) read with Rule-64 of the OMMC Rules and pass a reasoned and speaking order by affording opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Ashok (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 24-Jan-2024 16:55:51 Page 3 of 3