Orissa High Court
WA/615/2025 of SATYASHREE PATNAIK Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 25 June 2026
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.615 of 2025 Satyashree Patnaik …. Appellant Ms. Adisha Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Respondents Mr. S. B. Mohanty, AGA For R. No.1 Mr. Arnav Behera, Panel Counsel For R. Nos. 2 & 3 (OPSC) CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.615 of 2025
Satyashree Patnaik
….
Appellant
Ms. Adisha Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others
….
Respondents
Mr. S. B. Mohanty, AGA
For R. No.1
Mr. Arnav Behera, Panel Counsel
For R. Nos. 2 & 3 (OPSC)
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
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
25.06.2026
03. This Appeal seeks to call in question the order dated 07.11.2024 whereby Appellant’s WPC No.24981 of 2024 was dismissed as having been withdrawn unconditionally. The short order is reproduced for ease of reference:
“1. This matter is taken up through a hybrid arrangement.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this Writ Petition unconditionally.
3. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”
2. Subsequently, an application in I.A. No.1666 of 2025 was moved seeking recall/modification of the said order and it was supported by an affidavit. However, learned Single Judge was not impressed by the said application and therefore, it also met the same fate. That is why the Appeal has arisen before us.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently submits that the withdrawal was made in a mistaken notion where there was worthy cause to press into service. Therefore, the application was moved seeking recall of the order whereby the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. That application not to have been favoured and by that no prejudice would have been done to anyone inasmuch as at the most the Writ Petition would have been restored to the Board for being treated on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders. This having not been done, the impugned orders have caused enormous injustice to Appellant, argues the counsel.
4. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 opposes the Appeal contending that once right to withdraw the lis instituted is unconditionally exercised and the Court giving liberty has permitted withdrawal unconditionally, ordinarily Appeal of the kind is not maintainable against orders of the nature. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 also tells that the counsel who is arguing the Appeal now was not the counsel who had appeared before the learned Single Judge and what transpired before the learned Single Judge is bit different from what has been projected before this Court. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Appeal.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused Appeal Papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence inasmuch as, right to institute a litigation ordinarily includes right to withdraw the same vide Sheela Barse v. Union of India, (1988) 4 SCC 226, AIR 1988 SC 2211. However, sometimes, in a mistaken notion, petitions have been withdrawn though there are arguable points. When a request is made to recall the order whereby the proceedings were put to an end as having been withdrawn, Courts ordinarily would be lenient regard being had to arguable merits in the matter. That reasoning is not reflected in the order passed by learned Single Judge on the recall application. The order does not mention the word ‘recall’ at all and proceeds on assumption that the prayer is only for modification.
In the above circumstances, this Appeal having been favoured, the order of the learned Single Judge is set at naught and as a consequence, the Writ Petition is restored to the Board for being treated on merit, keeping open all contentions of the Parties.
(Krishna S. Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge
AK Pradhan/Priyanka Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYANKA BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 18:17:30 Signature Not Verified