AJAY KUMAR PRUSTY v. STATE OF ODISHA
Court: High Court of Orissa
Bench: MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH,MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Orissa judgment dated 2024-12-10. AJAY KUMAR PRUSTY v. STATE OF ODISHA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W. P. (C) No. 29529 of 2023 Ajay Kumar Prusty … Petitioner Mr. P. C. Nayak, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others … Opposite Parties Mrs. S. Pattanaik, Additional Government Advocate and Mr. J. J. Pradhan, Advocate for opposite parties No. 2 & 5 CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER Order No. 10. 12. 2024 07. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “It is therefore prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue Rule NISI, in the nature of any appropriate writ/writs and/or any other writ/writs and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions calling upon the opp. parties to show cause as to why:- (i) The order dated 16. 08. 2023 (Annexure-1) and the office order dated 17. 8. 2023 (Annexure-2) passed by Opp. Party No. 3 in selecting and awarding the contract in favour Opp. Party No.
6 shall not be declared illegal, arbitrary and same shall not be quashed being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) The decision making process of the Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-l and 2 shall not be declared illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the tender conditions and same shall not be quashed. (iii) The work order shall not be issued in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner has qualified all the eligible criteria as per tender conditions for the work for Level- II transport contractor for the biennial, year 2023-25 for transportation of food grains to the retail centres of Nischintakoili block. And/or to pass such other order/orders, direction/ directions as this Hon'ble Court deems just, fit, equitable and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;” 3. Mr.
Prabodha Chandra Nayak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to proceed with the present writ application for which a memo has been filed for withdrawal of the writ application. 4. Considering the said submission and keeping in view the memo filed to the said effect, the writ application is dismissed as withdrawn. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice (Savitri Ratho) Judge M Panda/ Sisira Behera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIRA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Dec-2024 18:56:04
Source: High Court of Orissa. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.