High CourtsDivision Bench

Sabitabala Acharya vs State Of Odisha And Others

Orissa High Court · Decided on 17 March 2023 · Citation: (2023) 03 OHC CK 0128

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.Talapatra J · Savitri Ratho, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No.3382 Of 2016

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 220 words
1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

It has been informed by Mr.A.Panda, learned counsel appearing on instruction of Mr.D.K.Panda, learned counsel who was appearing for the opposite party No.3 that the brief has been released by them and Mr.D.K.Panda, learned counsel and his associates are no more appearing for the opposite party No.3.

3.

Be that as it may, the opposite party No.3 shall ensure their representation by the next date.

4.

Mr.D.Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties No.1 and 2 has submitted that the State is actively considering to review the provision which has been challenged in this writ petition. It has been further stated that for completing the process of consideration and passing the appropriate order, some more time would be required.

5.

Mr.Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate sought for accommodation, which is granted.

6.

Let the matter be listed on 22nd June, 2023. It is made abundantly clear that even if the resolution/order of the Government is not produced by the next date, or the counter affidavit is not filed, we will take up this appeal for disposal on merit on the next date.

7.

Mr.M.K.Sahoo, learned counsel has appeared for the petitioner.

8.

A free copy of this order be supplied to Mr.Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate.

……………………………….