Orissa High Court
WP(C)/21734/2026 of RANJAN KUMAR SETHY Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 31 August 2026
of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 21734 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010514332026 Ranjan Kumar Sethy ..... Petitioner Mr. S.K. Dwivedy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. A . Tripathy, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Page 1 of 2.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No. 21734 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010514332026
Ranjan Kumar Sethy
.....
Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Dwivedy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr.
.....
Opposite Parties
Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
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
31.08.2026 Order No. 04
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Pursuant to order dtd.23.07.2026, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate produced the instruction provided by the office of Commissionerate of CT & GST, Odisha, Kataka in Court. The same be kept in record.
4. Basing on the instruction it is contended that even though this Court vide order dtd.12.06.2026 under Annexure-2 directed Opp. Party No. 1 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim, but since Op. Party No. 1 forwarded the matter to Opp. Party No. 2 vide his letter dtd.01.07.2026, the impugned order has been passed by the said authority on 01.07.2026. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order so passed by Opp. Party No. 2.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since in its earlier order passed under Annexure-2, this Court directed Opp.
Page 2 of 2. Party No. 1 to take a decision, the said authority could not have relegated the power to Opp. Party No. 2 vide his letter dtd.01.07.2026 as per the instruction so provided.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submission made and since this Court in its order dtd.12.06.2026 directed Opp. Party No. 1 to take a decision, it is the view of this Court that the said authority could not have relegated the power to Opp. Party No. 2 vide his letter dtd.01.07.2026 so enclosed to the writ petition.
6.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while quashing the impugned order dtd.01.07.2026 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-4, directed Opp. Party No. 1 to take a decision in terms of order dtd.12.06.2026.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge Sneha Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Sep-2026 10:51:22 Signature Not Verified