AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 220 wordsBiraja Prasanna Satapathy, J
1.This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
This matter was originally heard and order was reserved on 14.10.2022. Subsequently for clarification on certain points the matter was again listed on 27.10.2022 under the heading “to be mentioned” and the matter was heard further and the order was reserved.
Today when the matter was again listed under the heading “to be mentioned”, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as the Private Opp. Party contended that the writ petition has been disposed of with passing of the order on 27.10.2022 and the same has been uploaded by the NIC Centre. This Court finds that no such order has been passed and delivered on 27.10.2022 and the same has been done wrongly by the Jr. Stenographer namely Snehanjali Parida.
Since no such order was passed or pronounced on 27.10.2022 and the order has been wrongly uploaded in the website, Registry is directed to withdraw the said order forthwith. Registrar Judicial is also directed to issue a caution to the Jr. Stenographer namely Snehanjali Parida to remain cautious in future.
Heard further argument from the learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
As requested by learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, list this matter on 18.01.2023 under the heading “to be mentioned”.
.......................................