Orissa High Court
WP(C)/18156/2025 of RASHMI RANJAN ROUTRAY Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 21 July 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18156 of 2025 Rashmi Ranjan Routray …. Petitioner Represented by Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Meher, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Alok Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Represented by Adv. Ms. B.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18156 of 2025
Rashmi Ranjan Routray
….
Petitioner
Represented by Adv.
Mr. Ashish Kumar Meher, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Alok Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others
….
Opp. Parties
Represented by Adv.
Ms. B. Dash, Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
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
21.07.2026
03.
1. What cannot be achieved directly is sought to be achieved indirectly. The private contract between two individuals is sought to be enforced through a constitutional fiat, thereby roping the Government into the litigation. The lease was answered into between the Government and the lessee in relation to a sign inquiry. According to the Petitioner, he financed the lessee for obtaining the quarry lease/permit and also for working thereof or for workability thereof i.e. the Petitioner approached the authority by making a representation raising a grievance that he has financed the entire project of the quarry lease and therefore, he is otherwise entitled to the benefits from the said problem. The said representation being unattended, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the authority to decide the said representation in a time bound manner.
2. The first and foremost point which arose in the instant matter is whether the Writ Petition of such nature is maintainable, far to speak of entertainable. If any dispute arises between two individuals out of a contract entered into between them, merely making the Government a party does not weave the fabric of a public law litigation where the Government should be ordered to do a particular thing in a particular manner. A Writ Petition is maintainable against an authority as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and cannot be stretched further to enforce a private contract, which is within the realm of private law. By using the tool of clever draftsmanship, the law does not permit the creation of an illusory cause of action by giving the shape of a dispute under public law, and the Court must rise to such occasion by nipping such frivolous litigation in the bud. This is one of the classic examples where a private dispute within the realm of private law is sought to be projected as a dispute within the realm of public law.
3. We, thus do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. The same stands dismissed.
(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge
Bijay/Sarbani Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:23:46 Signature Not Verified