Orissa High Court
Rajkishore Rout vs State Of Odisha And Ors. .... Opposite ... on 17 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.23888 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Rajkishore Rout .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha and Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Adv.
Mr. Satyam Das Pattanaik, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-23.09.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT: -17.10.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction for release of a Tata Signa (Hyva Truck) bearing Registration No.OD05BY3505, which, according to the petitioner, has been illegally seized and detained by the Tahasildar, Niali, without authority of law and in disregard of due process, rendering the said action unsustainable in law.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The present writ petition arises out of the seizure and detention of a Tata Signa (Hyva Truck) bearing Registration No. OD05BY3505, Page 1 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 alleged to have been involved in the transportation of sand from the Kulashree area under Niali Tahasil in Cuttack district. The vehicle is registered in the name of a partnership firm, R.K. Rout & Partners, which is engaged in commercial transportation activities. The incident in question took place on 10.06.2025, when a joint enforcement team comprising officials of the Niali Tahasil and personnel of the Niali Police Station conducted a raid in the Kulashree area to check unauthorized transportation of minor minerals.
(ii) During the said operation, two Hyva trucks, including the vehicle in question, were found carrying sand without production of valid transit permits i.e. Y-Forms. Both vehicles were seized on the spot by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Niali Police Station, in the presence of witnesses, and the seizure was recorded vide General Diary Entry No. 22 dated 10.06.2025. The vehicles were thereafter placed under the custody of Niali Police Station for safe keeping. A report of the seizure was submitted on the same day to the Mining Officer-cum-Competent Authority, Minor Minerals, Cuttack, through Daily Report No. 1862/PS dated 10.06.2025.
(iii) Subsequent to the seizure, the Mining Officer sought verification of ownership from the RTO, Cuttack, and initiated steps for assessment of penalty in accordance with Rule 51(1)(xi) of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2023. The ownership details of the vehicle were later confirmed, and the vehicle continued to remain in custody pending further action.
(iv) Meanwhile, the registered owner of the vehicle approached various authorities seeking its release, alleging that the seizure had been made Page 2 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 without due authority or proper notice. The owner submitted representations before the Deputy Director of Mines, Jagatpur, requesting release of the vehicle and clarification of the grounds for its detention. It is stated that no formal communication or seizure list was served upon the owner. The vehicle, being stationary in open conditions for an extended period, reportedly suffered physical deterioration due to weather exposure.
(v) The records indicate that the vehicle had been financed through a loan obtained from Bandhan Bank, Cuttack Branch, and that monthly installments continued to accrue during the period of seizure. The owner, claiming financial distress on account of the vehicle's non- operation, eventually invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking release of the vehicle and a declaration that the seizure was without sanction of law.
(vi) The essential facts for adjudication, therefore, concern the authority under which the seizure was made, the compliance or otherwise with the procedure prescribed under the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, and whether the detention of the vehicle stands justified within the framework of statutory and constitutional protections.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) On the fateful night, the driver of the Petitioner's vehicle informed that one transporter had offered a consignment for transportation of sand Page 3 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 from the Kulashree area under Niali Tahasil and that the requisite Form "Y" was being arranged. However, when no further communication was received from the driver till late night, the Petitioner made several attempts to contact him, but his mobile phone was found to be switched off. Entertaining suspicion, the Petitioner tracked the vehicle's GPS location and found it stationed within the premises of Niali Police Station, exposed to sun and rain.
(ii) Upon visiting the said Police Station, the Petitioner was informed that the vehicle had been detained during a purported raid conducted under the directions of the Tahasildar, Niali, and that the vehicle had been placed under the custody of the Police for "safe keeping".
Thereafter, upon approaching the office of the Tahasildar, Niali, the Petitioner was apprised that the officials of the said office had seized the vehicle and handed it over to the concerned Police Station and that the only recourse available to the Petitioner was to approach the competent court for release of the vehicle.
(iii) Subsequently, on 10.06.2025, the I.I.C., Niali Police Station, entered the particulars of the said seizure in the General Diary and made a requisition to the Deputy Director of Mines, Jagatpur, seeking instructions for further action as per law, vide OR No. 1862 dated 10.06.2025. Notwithstanding such entry, no FIR has been lodged before the competent court nor any proceeding initiated under the relevant provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, or the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016. The Petitioner's vehicle, laden with materials, has been lying idle and exposed to the vagaries of weather for over two months, Page 4 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 causing considerable deterioration to its mechanical condition due to prolonged exposure to sunlight, rainfall, and corrosive moisture.
(iv) The Petitioner, being aggrieved by such illegal detention, submitted a written representation before the Deputy Director of Mines, Jagatpur, praying for release of the vehicle and seeking clarification as to the grounds and authority under which the seizure had been effected. However, no response or action was forthcoming from the said authority. It is further pertinent to note that the Opposite Party authorities, after effecting the alleged seizure, neither prepared or served any seizure list upon the Petitioner nor issued any notice as contemplated under law, nor demanded any compounding fee or penalty. The said inaction is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
(v) The action of the Opposite Party authorities in seizing and detaining the Petitioner's commercial vehicle is not only illegal and arbitrary but also mala fide, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the express provisions of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016. Rule 51(1)(ii) of the said Rules clearly delineates the authorities competent to effect seizure of vehicles involved in illegal mining activities. For ready reference, the said provision reads as follows:
"Rule 51(1)(ii): The Director or Additional Director or Joint Director or Deputy Director or Mining Officer or Assistant Mining Officer or Junior Mining Officer or Divisional Forest Officer or Assistant Conservator of Forest or Range Officer or Police Officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police may seize the minor minerals and its products together with all tools, equipment and vehicles used in Page 5 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 committing such offence within their respective jurisdiction."
(vi) From the above provision, it is manifest that a Tahasildar does not fall within the category of officers empowered to effect seizure under the OMMC Rules, 2016. Hence, the purported seizure of the Petitioner's vehicle by the Tahasildar, Niali, is ultra vires and without any legal sanction.
(vii) As a consequence of such illegal and arbitrary seizure, the Petitioner has suffered immense financial hardship and mental harassment. Despite facing severe constraints, the Petitioner managed to pay two monthly EMIs amounting to ₹1,92,400/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety- Two Thousand Four Hundred Only) by borrowing funds. The continued detention of the vehicle has not only crippled the Petitioner's means of livelihood but has also imposed upon him an undue financial burden.
(viii) It is further submitted that, by failing to prepare and furnish a seizure list or lodge a complaint before the competent court, the Opposite Party authorities have effectively deprived the Petitioner of his statutory right to seek release of the vehicle before the jurisdictional magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The said omission and inaction are ultra vires and amount to a gross violation of the Petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India.
(ix) It is also relevant to mention that the Opposite Party authorities do not possess any designated premises for safe custody of the seized vehicle, Page 6 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 as a result of which the Petitioner's vehicle has been exposed to weather-induced damage and deterioration. The officials involved in the illegal seizure are personally liable for their actions, warranting disciplinary proceedings against them. The Petitioner further prays that the costs of litigation and the monthly installments paid during the period of illegal seizure may be recovered from the salaries of such erring officers.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Opp. Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i). It is respectfully submitted that, pursuant to credible information regarding rampant illegal transportation of sand in the Kulashree area under Niali Tahasil; the Tahasildar, Niali issued directions to conduct a joint enforcement raid to curb such activities. The said order required that all preventive steps be taken to check unauthorized extraction and transportation of sand and that the Mining Officer, Cuttack, be kept informed of the actions taken.
(ii). In compliance with the said directions, a joint enforcement team comprising Sri Sitakanta Sahoo (JRA), Sri Pramod Kumar Behera (ARI), Sub-Inspector Prasanta Kumar Behera, and other police personnel of Niali Police Station, under the supervision of Tahasildar Sri Tarem Ranjan Ray, conducted a raid in the Kulashree area on 10.06.2025.
(iii). During the course of the raid, two Hyva trucks bearing Registration Nos. OD05BY3505 and OD02CA6571 were found transporting sand without any valid documents. Upon demand, the respective drivers Page 7 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 failed to produce the requisite Y-Form or Transit Permit authorizing such transport.
(iv). Accordingly, Sub-Inspector Prasanta Kumar Behera, being an officer duly empowered under Rule 51(1)(xii) of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2023, seized both sand-laden vehicles in the presence of independent witnesses. The seizure was recorded vide General Diary Entry No. 22 dated 10.06.2025, and written acknowledgments were duly obtained from the respective drivers. The seized vehicles were thereafter kept in safe custody at Niali Police Station, Cuttack.
(v). Immediately after the seizure, the I.I.C., Niali Police Station, communicated the fact of seizure to the Mining Officer-cum- Competent Authority, Minor Minerals, Cuttack, vide Daily Report No. 1862 dated 10.06.2025, for initiation of action under law. On enquiry, the Mining Officer ascertained that no valid permission had been issued to the said vehicles for transportation of sand on the date of their interception and seizure.
(vi). Thereafter, the Mining Officer, Cuttack, vide his letter dated 07.08.2025, requested the RTO, Cuttack, to furnish ownership details of the vehicle bearing Registration No. OD05BY3505. Upon receipt of confirmation regarding ownership, the Mining Officer is to take necessary steps for imposition of penalty as per Rule 51(1)(xi) of the OMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2023, and the Notification of the Directorate of Minor Minerals, Steel and Mines Department, Government of Odisha. Until such process is completed, the seized Page 8 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 vehicle continues to remain under safe custody at Niali Police Station premises.
(vii). The Opposite Parties further submit that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Niali Police Station, who effected the seizure, is a competent authority under the OMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2023, to undertake such seizure. Rule 51(1)(xii) specifically empowers a police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector to seize any minor mineral, its products, or vehicles used in commission of an offence. Hence, the seizure of the Petitioner's vehicle was carried out strictly within the ambit of statutory powers and procedural compliance.
(viii). It is thus contended that the writ petition filed by the Petitioner seeking release of the vehicle on the premise that it was illegally seized by the Tahasildar, Niali, is misconceived and devoid of merit. The Tahasildar did not effect the seizure himself; rather, the same was executed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Niali, in accordance with the law. The operation was a lawful enforcement measure undertaken under official supervision and with proper coordination between the Tahasil and Police authorities.
(ix). The Opposite Parties therefore submit that the seizure of the Petitioner's vehicle was conducted in due compliance with the OMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2023, was duly reported to the competent authority, and was followed by all procedural formalities. The allegations of mala fides, arbitrariness, or lack of jurisdiction are baseless, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Page 9 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.
6. The first issue to be decided is whether the seizure of the petitioner's vehicle was effected by a competent authority under law. Rule 51(1)(ii) of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (as amended in 2023) enumerates the officers empowered to seize vehicles involved in illegal mining. These include officers of the Mines Department (Director, Deputy/Assistant Mining Officers, etc.), Forest Officers (Range Officer and above), and "any Police Officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police"
7. Notably, a Tahasildar is not included in this list. In the present case, however, while the raid was supervised by the Tahasildar, the record shows that the actual seizure was carried out by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Niali P.S., as reflected in General Diary Entry No.22 dated 10.06.2025. A police officer of that rank is expressly empowered under Rule 51 to seize vehicles transporting minor minerals without authorization. Therefore, the seizure per se cannot be held void on the ground of lack of authority. Even if the Tahasildar initiated or directed the operation, the fact remains that a duly authorized police officer conducted the seizure; this satisfies the statutory requirement. The petitioner's contention that the seizure was ultra vires because a Tahasildar ordered it is thus not tenable in law, since the enforcement team included an authorized officer who actually exercised the power of seizure.
Page 10 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00
8. However, merely establishing the authority for seizure does not end the matter. The gravamen of the petition is that after the vehicle was seized, the authorities failed to adhere to due process for confiscation or release as mandated by law. It is undisputed that no FIR or criminal complaint was lodged under the MMDR Act or the IPC. Instead, the only action taken was an intimation to the Mining Officer on 10.06.2025 and a subsequent letter on 07.08.2025 seeking ownership verification for the purposes of imposing a penalty under Rule 51(1)(xi) of the OMMC Rules. Till date, no notice of any confiscation or penalty proceeding has been served on the petitioner, nor has any compounding fee been demanded. The vehicle remains in limbo at the police station for about five months, exposed to the elements and steadily deteriorating. This state of affairs prima facie violates the petitioner's right to property and livelihood.
9. Now, the OMMC Rules and allied policies envisage that a vehicle seized for illegal mining should not be kept in custody indefinitely without recourse. Rule 51(1)(xi) provides for imposition of a penalty (essentially a form of compounded compensation) on the offender, which, if paid, would secure release of the seized property. Indeed, the State of Odisha has recently put in place a structured penalty regime for release of seized vehicles, in line with environmental guidelines. For example, a notification of October 2024 prescribes graduated fines (ranging up to ₹4 lakhs for newer heavy vehicles) for the release of equipment and vehicles caught in illegal mining. The intent of the law is clearly to discourage illegal mining through financial penalties, while still allowing the vehicle to be released upon payment of dues. Page 11 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 Thus, once the alleged violation is detected and the necessary penalty assessed, the vehicle should either be released on payment of such penalty or subjected to formal confiscation proceedings in a court of law.
10. In the present case, the Opposite Parties have not shown any justification for keeping the truck impounded without promptly completing the penalty assessment and offering the petitioner an opportunity to pay and secure release. There is also no indication that the vehicle is required as material evidence in any pending trial. In fact, no trial or prosecution has even begun. With modern techniques, the essential evidence (such as photographs of the laden vehicle, samples of the sand, etc.) can be preserved without physically holding the entire truck hostage. Continuing to detain the vehicle serves little purpose except to punish the owner by attrition.
11. A consistent line of judicial precedents has reaffirmed that the prolonged retention of seized vehicles in police custody serves no meaningful purpose and results only in their gradual deterioration and depreciation. In this context, the Supreme Court, in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat,1 unequivocally held as follows:
"In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles."1
(2002) 10 SCC 283.
Page 12 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00
12. The underlying rationale is that a vehicle is a depreciating asset which should not be idly stuck in legal quagmire. More recently, in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam,2 the Supreme Court considered a case of a truck seized during pendency of an NDPS trial, and reiterated that keeping a vehicle in custody for years benefits no one. The Court noted as following:
"34. This Court is also of the view that if the Vehicle in the present case is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose. This Court takes judicial notice that vehicles in police custody are stored in the open. Consequently, if the Vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce.
35. On the contrary, if the Vehicle in question is released, it would be beneficial to the owner (who would be able to earn his livelihood), to the bank/financier (who would be repaid the loan disbursed by it) and to the society at large (as an additional vehicle would be available for transportation of goods)."
13. These pronouncements are squarely applicable here. The petitioner's livelihood has been crippled as his commercial truck lies unused; the financier (a bank that lent on the vehicle) is also adversely affected as loan installments mount in default. No societal interest is served by the vehicle's stagnation, on the contrary, getting the truck back on the road (subject to legal conditions) means it can contribute to economic activity and even legally transport minerals in the future. 2 [2025] 1 SCR 281 Page 13 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00
14. In Rajesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha,3 I had the opportunity to decide a similar case where a vehicle was seized and kept in custody for over a year during an NDPS case, this Court ordered its release, observing that "by its very nature, a vehicle is intended for active use and mobility, and its prolonged immobility in official custody serves no substantive legal or practical purpose".
15. In light of the above principles, the continued detention of the petitioner's Tata Signa Hyva truck for nearly five months without any formal proceeding is unsustainable. The Opposite Parties have not instituted any confiscation case before a Magistrate, which means the petitioner cannot even avail the remedy of interim release under Section 451/457 of the Cr.P.C. The only process contemplated, imposition of a Rule 51 penalty, has languished without conclusion. This administrative indecision de facto deprives the petitioner of his property and livelihood without the safeguard of adjudication. Such a situation offends the constitutional guarantee of fairness. While the State undoubtedly has a legitimate interest in preventing illegal mining and punishing offenders, that objective can be met by levying monetary penalties as per law and, if necessary, prosecuting the culprits. It does not require the vehicle to be held interminably when no further investigative purpose is served. If the worry is that releasing the truck might enable future wrongdoing or make it unavailable for a future proceeding, that can be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions and security, rather than outright denial of release.
3 2025 SCCOnline Ori 866 Page 14 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 V. CONCLUSION:
16. In light of the comprehensive exposition of the law provided above, it is directed that the detained vehicle (Tata Signa Hyva Truck bearing Registration No. OD-05-BY-3505) shall be released in favor of the petitioner (registered owner) forthwith, subject to the following conditions which the petitioner must fulfill to the satisfaction of the competent authority:
(a) The petitioner shall produce the original Registration Certificate of the vehicle, valid insurance, and any other relevant documents before the Investigating Officer/Station House Officer.
Attested copies of these documents shall be retained on record
(b) The petitioner shall not change the colour or any identifying part of the vehicle (engine or chassis number) and shall not transfer or sell the vehicle to any third party without permission of the Court
(c) The petitioner will furnish recent photographs of the vehicle from multiple angles before release
(d) The petitioner shall furnish a security bond of ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) in the form of property security or cash/bank guarantee to ensure production of the vehicle as and when required. This amount is fixed taking into account the nature of the vehicle and the potential penalty for the alleged violation; it is subject to adjustment by the authorities if any statutory rule specifically prescribes a higher penalty or security for such release.
Page 15 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00
(e) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the competent authority or Court whenever called upon during the inquiry or trial of the alleged offense. Failure to produce the vehicle or violation of any of the above conditions will entail cancellation of this release order and consequences in accordance with law.
17. Additionally, the Opposite Party authorities (particularly the Mining Officer, Cuttack and any other competent authority under the OMMC Rules) are directed to initiate and conclude appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in a time-bound manner. If the intent is to levy a penalty under Rule 51(1)(xi) of the OMMC Rules, such penalty notice should be issued forthwith, so that the petitioner may contest it or comply by payment.
18. If the State intends to prosecute the petitioner under the MMDR Act and OMMC Rules, then a proper complaint under Section 22 of the MMDR Act should be filed before the jurisdictional court without further delay. In either scenario, no further unjustified delay shall be tolerated. The entire process should be carried to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks from today. This direction is necessary to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the petitioner's rights are not kept in abeyance indefinitely. The authorities shall also bear in mind the mandate of the Supreme Court that seized property must be preserved, not destroyed by inaction.
19. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. Page 16 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00
20. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
21. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 17th October, 2025/ / Page 17 of 17