The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 10570 of 2025 Devendar Singh Sachar & others …. Petitioners Ms. K.Roy Choudhury, Advocate State of Odisha & others -Versus- …. Opposite Parties Ms. B. Dash, ASC Mr. J. Katikia, Advocate (O.P. Nos.2 & 3) Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate (Intervenor) CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER 23.07.2025 I.A. No.10517 of 2025 Order No. 07. 1.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the intervenor and Ms. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners besides Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 & 3. 2. Instant I.A. is filed seeking impletion of the intervenor
Decision
in the writ petition on the grounds stated therein. 3. Referring to Annexure-1 series and Annexure-2, it is submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the intervenor that the construction of the market complex is unduly held up despite dismissal of SLP (C) No.14180 of 2019. It is further submitted that a direction has been issued by the Page 1 of 5 this Court confirmed in the SLP regarding the petitioners to vacate the premises in possession with such other directions in order to facilitate the commencement of the construction of market complex but it has not taken place and therefore, in view of the interest involved, impletion of the petitioner is necessary. 4. An objection is filed by opposite party Nos.2 & 3 as at Flag-F. 5. Recorded the submission of Ms. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for Rourkela Development Authority-opposite party Nos.2 & 3, according to whom, the intervenor is not to take up the construction of the market complex as is claimed and therefore, he has no locus standi. In response to the above, Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the intervenor submits that there is an agreement between the intervenor and the Rourkela Development Authority and in view of the earlier orders of this Court, he has been entrusted the construction of the market complex. 6. Considering the facts pleaded on record, Annexures-1 series and 2 besides the reply of Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 & 3, this Court is inclined and in favour of impleading the intervenor. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. Page 2 of 5 8. In the result, the I.A. stands disposed of with the impletion of the intervenor as opposite party No.4 in the writ petition. 9. Office is to carry out the above order forthwith. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge W.P.(C) No.10570 of 2025 08. 1. Heard Ms. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the Rourkela Development Authority ,namely-opposite party Nos.2 & 3 and Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party No.4 besides Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State. 2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned notices as at Annexure-4 series and Annexure-6 as arbitrary and hence, to be declared as illegal with consequential directions issued to the opposite parties, in particular, opposite party Nos.2 & 3 to receive the deposits with license fees from the date i.e. 20th January, 2025 in accordance with law. 3. In course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that in W.P.(C) No.11223 of 2015, this Court while disposing it of by order dated 15th May, 2019 had directed opposite party Nos.2 & 3 to consider allotment of the petitioners of a vacant land accommodating them for a temporary period in order to ensure completion of the Page 3 of 5 construction work and thereafter, to issue fresh allotment orders. In fact, on a reading of the above order, this Court finds that the petitioners therein were directed to vacate the premises immediately and to be shifted to any vacant location and then to consider fresh allotment of the shop rooms in the newly constructed project. 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party No.4 submits that since the premises have not been vacated as on date, the construction work has not commenced. 5. Ms. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though license fees have been deposited but there is demand of penalty by opposite party Nos.2 & 3 and hence, challenge is to the issuance of impugned notices as at Annexure-4 series. 6. Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 & 3 submits that such compliance is necessary as has been directed by the Court in W.P.(C) No.11223 of 2015. 7. Having regard to the facts pleaded on record and submissions as above and since there is a clear direction to vacate the premises by the petitioners and others with an understanding of allotment in future after the construction of the market complex is over, in view of inter se dispute of the petitioner and opposite party No.2 & 3 at present regarding the demand of penalty, this Court is of the view that the same should be immediately be worked out and settled within a reasonable period so as to give effect to the Court’s order and directions issued in W.P.(C) No.11223 of 2015. Any such delay Page 4 of 5 in the construction work of market complex is only to frustrate the order of the Court, hence, opposite party Nos.2 & 3 are to be accordingly directed to settle the claim of the petitioners within a stipulated period. 8. 9. Hence, it is ordered. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party Nos.2 & 3 to settle the claim of the petitioners with regard to the penalty demand and to immediately accommodate them in view of directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.11223 of 2015 concluding the above exercise as soon as possible at any time on or before 22nd August, 2025. It is further directed that once the above direction is complied with, on the premises being vacated by the petitioners, urgent steps are to be taken towards commencement and completion of the market complex without further delay. To facilitate the above exercise smoothly, the interim order dated 5th May, 2025 of this Court shall continue till the time line fixed with prompt compliance of the direction as aforesaid. 10. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. 11. A copy of the order be handed over to Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 & 3 for its onward intimation and early compliance. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Alok Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 24-Jul-2025 12:11:57 Page 5 of 5