Pabitra Mohan Nayak vs. State Of Odisha

Facts

The Petitioner, Pabitra Mohan Nayak, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The petition sought relief against a notice dated 23rd November, 2020, issued by the revenue authorities. However, the Court noted that the central prayers in the petition had already been decided against the Petitioner by a previous judgment of the same Court dated 7th June, 2021, in W.P.(C) No. 14924 of 2020 and batch (Harish Chandra Majhi v. State of Odisha). Regarding the grievance against the notice dated 23rd November, 2020, the Petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the writ petition.

Held

The Court observed that the central prayers in the present writ petition had already been decided against the Petitioner by a previous judgment of the High Court dated 7th June, 2021, in W.P.(C) No. 14924 of 2020 and batch. Consequently, the Petitioner's counsel sought leave to withdraw the writ petition. The Court granted this request, allowing the Petitioner to file a reply to the notice dated 23rd November, 2020, and to seek further remedies as available in law if aggrieved by any subsequent order. The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of this withdrawal. No specific findings were made on the merits of the notice itself, as the petition was withdrawn.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's central prayers in the writ petition have already been decided against him by a prior judgment of this Court, and if so, what is the consequence for the present petition? (Question of law) Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner, through his counsel, sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to first reply to the notice dated 23rd November, 2020, and to pursue appropriate remedies thereafter if aggrieved by any consequent order. The Petitioner implicitly accepted that the central prayers were decided against him. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the State or Opposite Parties regarding the issues raised by the Petitioner. However, the Court's observation indicates that the central prayers were already decided against the Petitioner.