Orissa High Court
WP(C)/6886/2023 of MANOJ KUMAR SAHU Vs UNION OF INDIA on 21 July 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6886 OF 2023 Manoj Kumar Sahu …. Petitioner Mr. Suryakant Dhir, Advocate being authorized by Mr. Prasanna Kumar Mishra, Advocate -versus- Union of India and others …. Opp. Parties Mrs. Jyoshnamayee Sahoo, Additional Standing
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.6886 OF 2023
Manoj Kumar Sahu
….
Petitioner
Mr. Suryakant Dhir, Advocate
being authorized by Mr. Prasanna Kumar Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India and others
…. Opp. Parties
Mrs. Jyoshnamayee Sahoo,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 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
Order No. 21.07.2026
09. W.P.(C) No.6886 of 2023 and I.A. No.11401 of 2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the illegal action of the GAIL India Ltd.,-Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 in laying gas pipelines beneath the agricultural land of the Petitioner without providing him an opportunity of hearing and without granting adequate compensation.
3. It is also prayed inter alia to restrain the Opposite Parties, more particularly, Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 from entering upon the land of the Petitioner.
4. Mr. Dhir, learned counsel being authorized by Mr. Prasanna Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Digitally Signed Signed by: SASHIKANT PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 21-Jul-2026 18:54:15 Signature Not Verified
Petitioner does not want to press the writ petition and prays for withdrawal of the same.
5. Mrs. Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel does not have any objection to such prayer.
6. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
7. Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge Sashikant