The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 21:19:36 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Braja Kishore Nayak W.P.(C) No. 26947 of 2025 …. Petitioner Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. The Collector, Bhadrak 3. Odisha State Road Transport Corporation (OSRTC), Cuttack 4. General Manager (Admn.), OSRTC 5. Unit Incharge, OSRTC, Cuttack 6. District Transport Manager, OSRTC, Bhadrak 7. Chief Accounts Officer-cum-Estate Officer, Paribahan Bhawan, Sachivalaya Marg, Unit-II, Bhubaneswar, District- Khurda …. Opposite Parties Order No. 05. Mr. S.R. Pattnaik, AGA Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Advocate Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Decision
ORDER 17.10.2025 W.P.(C) No. 26947 of 2025, I.A. No.17066 of 2025 and I.A. No. 18225 of 2025 1. 2. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. The Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction to the Odisha State Road Transport Corporation (OSRTC) represented through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Cuttack-Opposite Party No.3 (inadvertently stated as Opposite Party No.2) to consider the grievance of the Petitioner under Annexure-8 for renewal of the lease agreement. The Petitioner also prays for a direction to restrain the Opposite Parties from eviction of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 21:19:36 Petitioner without following due procedure of law. 3. Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that pursuant to execution of agreement dated 31st October, 2025 for a period of five years between the Odisha State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity ‘the OSRTC’) and the Petitioner, the Petitioner was delivered with possession of Ac. 3.480 decimals of land under Khata No.1197 at Bhadrak (Charampa), Baralapokhari pertaining to Plot Nos. 3376, 3385, 3386, 3387, 3388, 3389, 3390, 3391, 3556, 3562, 3563 and 3390/4838 (for brevity ‘demised premises’). The Petitioner pursuant to the said agreement took over possession and was paying the rent regularly. On expiry of the lease period, initially the OSRTC issued letter cancelling the lease vide order dated 31st May, 2018. But subsequently vide Order No. 9361 dated 9th July, 2018 vide Annexure-3, the General Manager (Admn.), OSRTC recalled the said order. Accordingly, the Commercial License Agreement was executed between the OSRTC and the Petitioner on 23rd August, 2023 with effect from 27th November, 2020 till 26th November, 2023 with enhancement of 20% of rent in each completion of three years with due renewal of execution of fresh agreement. However, the OSRTC did not renew the lease agreement after 26th November, 2023. But the Petitioner went on paying the rent as per the agreement which was being accepted by the licensor, namely, OSRTC. The Petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No. 31352 of 2024. But in spite of order dated 3rd March, 2025, the application for renewal of lease agreement submitted to the Opposite Party No.3 was not entertained and the OSRTC threatened to evict the Petitioner from the demised premises without following due procedure of law. Hence, the Petitioner finding no Page 2 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 21:19:36 other alternative has filed this writ petition. 4. It is submitted by Ms. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner that on acceptance of rent by the OSRTC beyond the lease period, the Petitioner acquired the right of a tenant holding over. Hence, the Petitioner in that capacity cannot be evicted without following due procedure of law as envisaged under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 5. She, however, submits that in the meantime, the application for renewal submitted to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, OSRTC (Opposite Party No.3) has been rejected during pendency of the case in spite of subsistence of an interim order. The renewal application of the Petitioner was rejected by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, OSRTC, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.3) on 18th September, 2025 copy of the order was received by the Petitioner on 4th October, 2025. Thus, the Petitioner could not get an opportunity to file an application to amend the writ petition challenging the order rejecting her application filed under Annexure-8. It is, however, submitted that though no notice of eviction has been served on the Petitioner, but steps are being taken by the OSRTC to evict him and to lease out the property at their sweet will. 6. It is further submitted that in view of the above, the Single Bench of this Court finding a prima facie case in favour of the Petitioner vide order dated 22nd September, 20258 while issuing notice in the matter was pleased to direct that as an interim measure, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner till the next date of listing of the matter in I.A. No. 17066 of 2025. The said order is still continuing being extended from time to Page 3 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 21:19:36 time. However vide order dated 15th October, 2025, learned Single Judge holding that the writ petition arises out of a contractual dispute, directed the Registry to place the matter before the appropriate assigned Bench forthwith. Accordingly, the matter is listed before this Bench. 7. She submits that as the OSRTC has not filed any counter affidavit to the writ petition. Thus, the averments made in the writ petition remain uncontroverted. Hence, she prays for allowing the prayer made in the writ petition. 8. Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel for the OSRTC vehemently objects to the same and submits that the writ petition has become infructuous. The first prayer for consideration of his application under Annexure-8 has already been considered by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, OSRTC, Bhubaneswar. Thus, the first prayer made in the writ petition for consideration of his application under Annexure-8 does not survive at present. Since there is no notice of eviction issued to the Petitioner, the second prayer does not survive to be considered. 9. It is further submitted that the lease agreement has expired and the Petitioner has grossly defaulted in payment of rent as per the agreement. Thus, by no stretch of imagination the Petitioner can be held to be a tenant holding over. From the documents filed by the Petitioner in the writ petition, it is clear that the Petitioner has paid rent up to the year, 2024 only and not beyond that. Thus, the Petitioner has no semblance of right to occupy the demised premises. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. I.A. No. 10766 of 2025 has been filed for intervention and I.A. No. 18225 of 2025 has been filed for vacation of the interim Page 4 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 21:19:36 order by one Manoj Mohanty. Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, learned counsel for the intervenor/ applicant submits that the writ petition suffers from suppression of material facts. The filing of previous writ petitions filed by the Petitioner have been suppressed in the present writ petition. By suppressing material facts, the Petitioner has obtained an interim order. He further submits that the intervenor/applicant had been granted permission by OSRTC and had performed the ‘Kali Puja’ during the year, 2024 and there was no objection from the Petitioner. Similarly this year also the intervenor/ applicant has been granted temporary license by OSRTC in respect of open space of Ac.2.490 decimals under Khata No. 1197 of Bhadrak (Charampa), Baralapokhari for conducting ‘Kali Puja’ and mela for the period from 14th October, 2025 to 29th October, 2025 (16 days) and he has deposited security deposit, ground rent and GST on 20th September, 2025. But in view of the interim order passed in this writ petition, the local Administration is not granting him necessary permission. Unless the interim order is vacated, the intervenor/ applicant will suffer irreparably. Since, the intervention/ applicant has been granted temporary license to perform the ‘Kali Puja’ over the demised premises, the interim order should be vacated. 11. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Single Bench while issuing notice in the writ petition vide order dated 22nd September, 2025, granted an interim order in I.A. No. 17066 of 2025 which reads as under:- “1. Heard. 2. As an interim measure, it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner till the next date Page 5 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 21:19:36 of listing of this matter. 3. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.” 12. The said order appears to be continuing till date. Pursuant to the order dated 15th October, 2025, the matter is listed before this Bench for final disposal. 13. On a plain reading of the prayer made by the Petitioner, it appears that he has prayed for a direction to the Opposite Party No.3 (inadvertently stated as Opposite Party No.2) to consider the grievance petition of the Petitioner under Annexure-8. In the meantime, the grievance petition for renewal of the lease submitted to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, OSRTC (Opposite Party No.3) has already been considered and his application for renewal of lease has been rejected vide order dated 18th September, 2025. The said factual position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties. It is, however, submitted by Ms. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the said order was served on the Petitioner only on 4th October, 2025, so he could not get any opportunity to file an application for amendment to challenge the same. 14. The fact remains that the application for renewal of the lease has already been rejected by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, OSRTC (Opposite Party No.3). It also appears from Annexure-5 series that the Petitioner has paid rent up to the year, 2024 only and not beyond that. Thus, the submission of Ms. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is a tenant holding over, cannot be accepted and is accordingly rejected. The Petitioner has no right to claim to restrain the Page 6 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 21:19:36 rightful owner, namely, OSRTC from taking steps for eviction. 15. In that view of the matter, the writ petition does not merit interference. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 17. Interim order dated 22nd September, 2025 passed in I.A. No. 17066 of 2025 stands vacated. 18. All pending interim applications are disposed of accordingly. 19. It is open to the Petitioner, if so advised, to challenge the order dated 18th September, 2025 passed by the Chairman-cum- Managing Director, OSRTC (Opposite Party No.3) on his application under Annexure-8, in accordance with law. puspa (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge Page 7 of 7