Orissa High Court
WP(C)/22443/2026 of SUDARSAN BAL Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 22 July 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22443 of 2026 Sudarsan Bal …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.– Mr. Ashok Kumar Sarangi, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv._ Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, Additional Govt. Advocate for
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.22443 of 2026
Sudarsan Bal
….
Petitioner
Represented by Adv.–
Mr. Ashok Kumar Sarangi, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others
….
Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv._
Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, Additional Govt. Advocate for O.P.Nos.1, 4 and 5
Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate for O.P. Nos.2 and 3
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Order No.
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
22.07.2026 (Hybrid mode)
01.
1. The petitioner has come up before this Court by way of filing this writ petition with the following prayer(s): “The petitioner, therefore prays that your Lordships may be graciously pleased to issue Rule "NISI" calling upon the opposite parties with a direction to modify the order no. 870/43-J-SNG (M), dt. 10.07.2026 vide Annexure-1 passed by the opposite Party no. 3 Addl. Asst. Commissioner of Endowment ,Sambalpur not binding to Sri Sri Gundicha Maa Trust and to continue previous tradition as per Resolution vide Annexure-3.
And for which act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”
2. Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 (Endowments) has raised objection and submitted that the prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition is misconceived inasmuch as this Court need not modify an order of Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments. She has further stated that the nature of averments and the prayer do not warrant entertainment of the writ application.
3. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. A memo to that effect has been filed in Court today, which is taken on record.
4. Leave is granted. However, liberty is reserved to the writ petitioner to approach appropriate authority to pursue remedy in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
5. The parties are to act upon the downloaded copy of this order.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge
(M.S. Raman) Judge
Aswini Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary in charge) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2026 10:23:53 Signature Not Verified