Purnananda Pattanaik Evening Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya v. State Of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 18950 of 2021 Purnananda Pattanaik Evening Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Osanga, Cuttack ....

Petitioner Mr. A.K. Pandey, Advocate -versusState of Odisha and others ....

Opposite Parties Mr. T.K. Pattnaik, ASC

CORAM:

JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA

ORDER

22.11.2022 03.

1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement Order No.

(Virtual/Physical Mode).

2.

On being permitted, learned counsel for the Petitioner makes necessary correction in the cause title of the writ petition in Court today.

3.

Mr. Sachidananda Nayak, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.5 and 6. 4.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties and Mr. Sachidananda Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties No.5 and 6.

// 2 // 5.

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:

"The Petitioner, therefore, humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, issue a Rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the petitioner's educational institution shall not be granted with for permanent recognition for Upsashatri and Sashatri Course as the opening permission has already been granted in favour of the Petitioner from the session 2012-13. If the Opp. Parties failed to show cause or shown insufficient cause the rule may be made absolute against the opposite parties.

And may pass any other appropriate direction(s)/order(s) as this Hon'ble Court considers may deem just and proper."

6.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that although the Petitioner has made several representations under Annexure-5 and has approached the authority concerned on different occasions, but no action has yet been taken on the same. 7.

Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties submits that it is not known as to whether such representations have been received by such authority or not. However, he further submits that in the event the Petitioner files a fresh representation, the same shall be considered by the authority concerned within a stipulated period of time. 8.

Considering such submission and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, this Court disposes of the writ petition permitting the Petitioner to make a fresh representation before the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 within a period of two weeks from today and in the event such representation is filed before the Opposite Parties No.1 an 3, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 shall do well to consider the same in accordance with law by passing a

// 3 // speaking and reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of such representation and the decision thereof so taken shall be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis