B.NAGARJUN v. ORISSA HYDROPOWER CO
Court: High Court of Orissa
Bench: MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Orissa judgment dated 2025-03-12. B.NAGARJUN v. ORISSA HYDROPOWER CO. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W. P. (C) No. 6955 of 2013 B. Nagarjun …. Petitioner None -versus- Orissa Hydropower Corporation Ltd. , …. Opposite Parties Orissa State Police Housing & Welfare Corporation Building and others Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rout, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 17. 12. 03. 2025 I. A. No. 4070 of 2025 This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. It is pointed out by the Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rout, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties-Orissa Hydropower Corporation Limited by way of filing an Interlocutory Application bearing I. A. No. 4070 of 2025 that though he has filed Vakalatnama being executed by Orissa Hydropower Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar before the Registry on 06. 01. 2021, his name didn’t appear in the cause list dated 24. 01. 2025. Consequent upon which, he could not remain present/appear to represent the opposite parties-Orissa Hydropower Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar. 2. 1.
He submits that on account of such lapse on the part of the registry of this Court, a letter dated 27. 02. 2025 (Annexure-C) has come to be issued to him as if the default was on account of the counsel. 2. 2. He has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure-B enclosed to I. A. On perusal of the copy of cause list, it is ascertained that the matter was listed at Item No. 21 of the cause list dated 24. 01. 2025, wherein the names of Mr. B. K. Nayak and D. K. Mohanty are reflected against the Opposite parties. 3. Due to mistake in reflecting correct position regarding appearance of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rout, learned counsel for Opposite parties by the Registry in the cause list, it could not be possible for him to attend the Court on 24. 01. 2025 on which date the matter stood dismissed without indicating his appearance. 4. Copy of Vakalatnama dated 30. 12. 2021 is enclosed to the I. A. No. 4070 of 2025.
On perusal of said Vakalatnama as available on the record, it is ascertained that the fact of filing of Vakalatnama is correct, but name of Sri Pradeep Kumar Rout, Advocate was not reflected in the cause list. It seems due to inadvertence the cause list dated 24. 01. 2025 did not take note of appearance of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rout, learned counsel for the opposite parties superseding the earlier counsel M/s. B. K. Nayak, Advocate and his Associates. 5. It appears due to error in reflecting the name of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rout, learned counsel for the opposite parties in the cause list, it is unfortunate that the Letter No. OHPC-HQ-HRD-LEGAL- CF-IND-360/2013/1428 dated 27. 02. 2025 has come to be issued by the Odisha Hidro Power Corporation Ltd. (Annexure-C to the I. A. ). This Court feels it to be observed that the same is to be ignored. 6. Today, also in the cause list, the name of learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties is not reflected. 7.
In view of such situation the order dated 24. 01. 2025 passed in W. P. (C) No. 6955 of 2013 is recalled and W. P. (C) No. 6955 of 2013 is restored to its original file. Accordingly, the I. A. stands disposed of. W. P. (C) No. 6955 of 2013 8. None appears for the petitioner on repeated calls today. 9. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rout, learned counsel for the opposite parties-Orissa Hydropower Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar. 10. Since this matter is of the year 2013 and no one has put in appearance on repeated calls and taking note the fact that on earlier occasion i. e. , 24. 01. 2025 no one represented the Petitioner at the time of call, this Court is not inclined to adjourn this matter any further. 11. In view of such, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. (M. S. Raman) Judge Suchitra
Source: High Court of Orissa. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.