SAMIR MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal has been directed against the order dated 18.5.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7189 of 2006. Though the facts leading to this appeal are voluminous and relate to various proceedings pending between the parties, it is not necessary to state the history of this litigation in detail, for the purpose of disposal of this appeal and, accordingly, we refrain from doing so.

(2.) IT would suffice to state that there is a long standing litigation between the parties with regard to constitute of Governing Body of the Regional College of Management at Bhubanes ¬war. In three writ petitions filed before this Court being O.J.C. No.4871 of 1999 and W.P.(C) Nos.6284 and 6287 of 2005, by order dated 2.8.2005, a Division Bench of this Court describing the facts leading to the cases in detail, held as follows : -

(3.) THE appellant who was an intervenor in the said suit and was impleaded as a party, challenged the said order dated 19.4.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar in W.P.(C) No.7189 of 2006. It appears from the order passed by the learned Single Judge which is impugned in this appeal that the learned counsel for the appellant who was the writ petitioner submitted before the learned Single Judge that the appellant -petitioner was not afforded with an opportunity of hearing by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar before passing the order impugned in the writ petition. On further query of the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant submitted before him that had the appellant -petitioner been given an opportunity of hearing, he would have opposed the prayer for injunction. On this ground, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that as ultimately the prayer for injunction is refused, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant -petitioner and there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order at the behest of the appellant -petitioner. It also appears from the order of the learned Single Judge that it was submitted before him during the hearing of the writ petition that the trial Court while disposing of the interim application has made certain observations on the basis of which the State Government is likely to take action against the appellant -petitioner. However, learned counsel for the appellant -petitioner was unable to show any such observation from the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.