JAGADISH MARDARAJ Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition was moved and heard on 16/5/2023. Mr. Mishra, learned senior advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner and had submitted, duty of sweeping the Rath is an ancestral obligation. He referred to memo dtd. 22/6/2011 of Additional Assistant Commissioner to demonstrate that his client had been performing the chore since long.

(2.) Unfortunately, there was misunderstanding between his client and his brother. As a result, there was interruption. The dispute has since been resolved. His client by representation dtd. 3/2/2023 approached the Executive Officer to allow him to perform the chore.

(3.) Drawing attention to our earlier order dtd. 3/5/2023 he had submitted, his client exercised liberty granted thereby to communicate said order and copy of the writ petition to his brother (opposite party no.5). Mr. Acharya, learned advocate had appeared on behalf of said opposite party and submitted, there is no dispute between the brothers regarding performance of the chore by Mr. Mishra's client.