Orissa High Court
WP(C)/23121/2026 of SASMITA NAYAK Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 3 September 2026
of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.23121 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010521752026 Sasmita Nayak ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Prafulla Chandra Das -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Ms. J. Sahoo, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE
Page 1 of 2.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.23121 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010521752026
Sasmita Nayak
.....
Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Prafulla Chandra Das
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others
.....
Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv.
– Ms. J. Sahoo, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
03.09.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The petitioner’s appeal under Section 22(2) of the OSS Act being registered as Appeal Case No. 53 of 2015 was dismissed for default on 06.01.2022. The petitioner, citing genuine reasons filed an application to restore the appeal to its original file and to dispose of the same on merits. Said application came to be rejected by order dated 13.06.2025 by holding that since the matter has already been decided, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the prayer. Said order is impugned in the present writ application.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned order, this Court is of the view that it was not proper on the part of the appellate authority to reject the application for restoration on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain Order No. 01
Page 2 of 2. the same. It goes without saying that if the appellant approaches the Court for restoration of the case to its original file citing certain grounds, it is incumbent upon the said authority to consider the said grounds and pass orders accordingly, instead of holding that it has no jurisdiction.
5. The writ application is therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Settlement Officer, Cuttack to consider the application filed by the petitioner seeking restoration of the appeal on its own merits. It goes without saying that if the settlement officer is satisfied that the petitioner has genuine grounds to put forth, he shall restore the appeal to its original file and hear it on its own merits.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge
A.K. Rana Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 08-Sep-2026 15:06:43 Signature Not Verified