WP(C)/19628/2026 of RANJAN KUMAR PARHI @ PADHI Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 13 August 2026

ORDER

13.08.2026

03.

1. The writ petitioner came up before this Court with the innocuous prayer that despite the representation dated 27th November, 2025 filed by the petitioner and the same being forwarded by the Excise Department to the Collector, Balasore, no decision has yet been taken thereupon and, therefore, a direction may be passed upon the Collector, Balasore to dispose of the said representation.

2. The instant case has a chequered history. The petitioner approached this Court after participating in the selection process for IMFL OFF shop but could not emerge successful therefrom in the year 2017. A representation came to be filed which, according to the petitioner, is kept in suspended animation and yet the authorities proceeded to settle the said IMFL OFF shop by inviting an application. Another representation was filed which, according to the petitioner, was also kept in limbo as no decision was taken by the authorities. The record would reveal that for non-consideration of the representation on each occasion, the approach was made to this Court and the direction was passed upon the authorities to dispose of the said representation.

3. As narrated in the preceding paragraphs, the pleading in the instant writ petition is lacking, so far as the compliance of the direction passed by this Court in earlier two writ petitions are concerned. According to the petitioner, those representations have not been disposed of for the reason that no decision was ever communicated to him.

4. Mr. Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) appearing on behalf of the opposite parties-State took an exception to such stand taken by the petitioner and prayed for a leave to file an affidavit disclosing the facts as according to the State, the petitioner is guilty of gross suppression of the material facts. In terms of the liberty so granted by this Court, the affidavit is filed today.

5. The document annexed to the affidavit would corroborate the stand of the State that as and when the direction was passed by this Court to dispose of the representation, the same had been disposed of with the categorical finding that there is no merit in the stand of the petitioner and the same was duly communicated to the petitioner as well. What is perceived as a gross suppression of fact that the communication made to the petitioner on the fate of those representations filed on the earlier occasions.

6. A litigant should approach the Court by disclosing all material facts and percolate a sense that he has come with the clean hands. The gross suppression of material facts is always viewed seriously by the Courts, as the person who is found indulged in committing such act should not be permitted to walk merrily from the corridor of the Court. The Court must deal such errant litigant with iron hands and a message must be permeated into the said litigant that if he is found to have committed an act of such nature, the Court will not show any leniency to such litigant.

7. Mr. Arjuna Charan Behera, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, tenders apology as he was also not aware of such facts nor the same was divulged to him at the time of drafting the petition and prayed for withdrawal of the instant writ petition by filing a memo of withdrawal.

8. As indicated hereinabove, the Court should not show any sympathy and/or empathy to such lackadaisical approach by a litigant, who has consciously and deliberately suppressed the material facts. We are conscious of apparent and distinct difference between the suppression of fact and suppression of material facts. Such fact, which is not germane to the cause of action, if not disclosed, may not come within the bracket of the material fact but the fact, which would have some nexus or impact the decision, comes within the folds of the material fact and in the event, the Court found that such material facts are suppressed, the consequence flowing therefrom is the need of an hour. Such a litigant should be reprimanded and should not gather any sense of being exonerated.

9. However, to strike a balance between justice and equity and the stand taken before us, we feel that such litigants should be reminded of their responsibility and the positivity must be ingrained into him by observing that in the event the petitioner is found to suppress any material fact in future litigation, the Court will not perceive such act as mistake but a deliberate act to gain something with the sinister motive.

10. Reverting to the merit of the case, we find that though the petitioner participated in the process of selection way back in the year 2017, but subsequent process of selection undertaken by the authorities does not reveal the participation of the petitioner therein. It is a specific stand of the State that as and when the process for settlement and/or the allotment of the IMFL OFF shop in the area is initiated, frequent representations are made by the petitioner and an approach is made to this Court with the innocuous prayer on the premise that the authorities are lethargic, dormant and have not disposed of such representation. Even after the communication of the decision by the authorities on an earlier representation, when the shop was sought to be settled again, the representation dated 27th November, 2025 came to be filed by the petitioner.

11. It is not in dispute that the said representation is still unattended, as the letter issued by the Excise Department to the Collector corroborates the same. A stale claim cannot be permitted to remain alive eternally nor should the deadwood be resuscitated under the representative fiat. In recent times, a practice has developed to make frequent representations without indicating the rights, which appears to have been ignored and/or infringed nor there is any discernible right in respect of an action of the authorities.

12. The docket of the Court is exploded with the writ petitions of such nature that the representations remain unattended and a direction to be passed upon the authorities to take a decision thereupon. If the representation does not vividly resonates the rights of the person, either flowing from the Constitution or the statute, such representation should be dealt with great caution and circumspection and the direction in a mechanical manner to take a decision should have been avoided. Apart from the same, it creates further cause of action for litigations when the decision, which otherwise immunes from being interfered with, is assailed before the Court and the judicial hours of the Court is wasted.

13. It is interesting to note that despite having not participated in the subsequent selection process for allotment of the IMFL OFF shop, the representation is made by the petitioner despite the fact that no right accrued in him nor remotely deprivation thereof can be realized. A person, who did not participate in the selection process, cannot ventilate the grievance with the prayer that the said IMFL OFF shop should be allotted to him, that too, on the basis of a selection process of 2017.

14. In the interregnum period, two selection processes have been undertaken by the State taking aid of the statutory provisions, yet the petitioner is frequently filing representations without any discernible right and approaching the Court for a direction. We cannot ignore the other aspect which we perceived in course of the litigation that the letter of the Excise Department appears to be a mechanical one without application of mind. The authorities should not issue such letter when the facts as adumbrated herein before were well within his knowledge and the representation is to take a chance and create an illusory cause of action for another litigation. Even while making communication of such nature, the authorities must apply their conscious mind and shall not encourage such litigants nor percolate any sense that his right is under consideration.

15. Be that as it may, we do not find any merit in the instant writ petition nor the relief claimed therein deserves to be granted.

16. The writ petition is thus dismissed, but in the circumstances with no order as to costs.

(Harish Tandon)

Chief Justice

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

S. Behera Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Aug-2026 11:48:15 Signature Not Verified