WP(C)/22518/2026 of MANGALU PUTEL Vs THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, DEPARTMENTOF WATER RESOURCES, ODISHA, BHUBANESWAR on 11 September 2026

ORDER

11.09.2026 (Hybrid Mode) Order No.

01.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

2. The Petitioner in the Writ Petition is before this Court for the second time. Earlier he had approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal. Upon abolition of the Tribunal, the application was transferred and registered before this Court as WPC(OAC) No.1143 of 2017.

By order dated 03.01.2027 the O.A. No.4337 of 2016 filed by the Petitioner was disposed of directing consideration of the representation of the Petitioner. The said representation was rejected.

By order dated 06.12.2021 the Coordinate Bench disposed of the WPC(OAC) with the following direction: “7. In view of such position, the order under Annexure-5 dated 3.06.2014, which has been passed without complying the principle of natural justice cannot sustain in the eye of law and as such the same is hereby quashed. Consequence thereof, the order in Annexure-10 dated 23.03.2017, i.e., the rejection of the representation of the petitioner also cannot sustain in the eye of law, as the same is outcome of non application of mind and as such the same is also hereby quashed.

8. The writ petition stand allowed.

9. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.”

3. As it appears that the order dated 23.03.2017 under Annexure-10 to the said WPC(OAC) was the order of rejection of the representation of the Petitioner. There was no further direction by the Coordinate Bench for consideration of the Petitioner’s grievance after the order dated 23.03.2017 was set aside; the matter has not proceeded any further as far as grievance of the Petitioner is concerned.

4. Learned counsel of the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner shall make a representation afresh enclosing all the documents relied upon, the copies of the orders passed earlier by this Court as well as the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal.

5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel in response submits that if the Petitioner shall make any representation the same shall be considered by the appropriate authority in accordance with law and disposed of within a reasonable time.

Amit

6. Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel, this Court at this stage is not seeking response from the Opposite Parties regarding the claims of the Petitioner made and contention raised in the Writ Petition.

7. It is directed Petition if so advised shall make a representation to the appropriate authority within a period of four weeks by enclosing copies of the documents sought to be relied upon by the Petitioner and copies of the orders passed earlier by this Court, the learned Tribunal as well as certified copy of this order.

Upon making of such representation the authority shall do well as consider the same in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order along with all such documents.

The order that would be made shall be communicated to the Petitioner.

8. This Court has not expressed any opinion regarding merits of the case or the contentions of the parties to the litigation.

9. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations.

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)

Judge

Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 12-Sep-2026 10:42:35 Signature Not Verified