Pramod Ku.Malik vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. It directed opposite party no. 2 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner under Annexure-2 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. This decision was to be made within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. The ratio decidendi is that when a statutory authority has a duty to consider a representation, the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can direct the authority to perform this duty within a reasonable time, without adjudicating the underlying dispute.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to opposite parties no. 5 and 6 to make payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- after deducting VAT, GST, and other charges, as per Annexure-1. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel stated that a representation had been made to opposite party no. 2 (vide Annexure-2) highlighting the grievance. The petitioner requested a direction for opposite party no. 2 to consider this representation within a stipulated time. The Court was not asked to express any opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct opposite party no. 2 to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- after deductions, as per Annexure-2. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that a representation had been made to opposite party no. 2 concerning the payment of a bill amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/-, and sought a direction for its timely consideration. Revenue/State's Argument: No specific argument was recorded for the revenue or state in this matter, as the petition was disposed of based on the petitioner's limited grievance and a representation made to an authority.