W.P.(C) No.30869 of 2026 Page 1 of 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) NO.30869 of 2026

CNR NO. ODHC010739762026

(In the matter of application under Articles 226 & 227

of the Constitution of India).

M/s. Lingaraj Infrastructure

Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar

… Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha and others … Opposite Parties

For Petitioner : Mr. G. Mukherjee, Sr.

Advocate along with

Ms. A. Mishra, Advocate

For Opposite Parties : Mr. R.B. Mishra, AGA

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:24.09.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company

incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956

and being represented by its Director, by way of this

Writ Petition invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of

this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution

of India to set-aside the impugned order dated

11.09.2026 passed by the OPNo.3 in UAP Case No.863

of 2026 (NZ) under Annexure-1 and the Show Cause

W.P.(C) No.30869 of 2026 Page 2 of 8

Notices No.45308 dated 31.07.2026 under Annexure-

14 & No.445 dated 05.09.2026 under Annexure-16.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Goutam

Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel, who enters

appearance for the petitioner in Court today along with

learned counsel Ms. Amrita Mishra by filing appearance

memo, which is taken on record, submits that the

petitioner was served with a notice of Show Cause

under Annexure-16 for unauthorized use of residential

premises for commercial purpose violating the provision

of Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982 (in short,

“the Act”) asking the petitioner to submit his

explanation within a period of 15 days and to appear

before the Deputy Commissioner-Cum-Authorized

Officer, ODA Court (NZ), BMC, Bhubaneswar either

personally or through an authorized agent and avail an

opportunity of personal hearing on 25.09.2026 at 10.30

AM at BMC, ICOMC TOWER, UNIT-IX, JANPATH, Infront

of Satya Nagar Kali Temple, but before providing any

opportunity to the petitioner, the Authorized Officer,

W.P.(C) No.30869 of 2026 Page 3 of 8

ODA Court (NZ), BMC, Bhubaneswar passed an order

on 11.09.2026 directing to close and remove the

commercial activities/non-residential use and

unauthorized development by the petitioner and such

order being passed without any semblance of

jurisdiction, is not only nullity, but also arbitrary and

unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) & 21

of the Constitution of India and right now, the writ

petitioner is facing the threat of sealing of his entire

building premises coupled with disconnection of

electricity, water supply and stoppage of sewerage to it

and this said order being passed without any

jurisdiction is liable to be interfered with. Mr.

Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel, accordingly, prays

to set-aside the order and to quash the Show Cause

Notices.

3. On the other hand, Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned

AGA could not validly dispute the impugned order

passed by the authority concerned before the scheduled

date of hearing as fixed, however, he strongly opposes

W.P.(C) No.30869 of 2026 Page 4 of 8

the prayer of the petitioner to set-aside the impugned

order on the ground that the authority concerned is

vested with power to pass such order and, he

accordingly, prays to dismiss the writ.

4. After having considered the rival submissions

upon perusal of record, this Writ Petition is taken up for

disposal at the threshold of admission, since Show

Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner to appear in

person on 25.09.2026, but the impugned order was

passed on 11.09.2026 and, thereby, clear violation of

the principle of Natural Justice. A careful perusal of the

averments of the Writ Petition together with the

documents as produced by the petitioner, it appears to

the Court that the petitioner was issued with a Show

Cause Notice on 05.09.2026 under Annexure-16 asking

him to submit his Show Cause and appear with all the

relevant documents before the ODA Court (NZ), BMC,

Bhubaneswar within 15 days from the date of issue of

such notice as to why appropriate action under the Act

and other applicable laws should not be taken against

W.P.(C) No.30869 of 2026 Page 5 of 8

the petitioner for unauthorized use of residential

premises for commercial purpose including

demolition/removal of unauthorized development and

sealing of the premises, as may be warranted in

accordance with law and the date on which the

petitioner was asked to appear in person with the

documents was fixed to 25.09.2026 at 10.30 AM, which

is yet to come, but the authority concerned vide

Annexure-1 has passed impugned order directing the

different authorities to disconnect the electric

connection, water supply and stoppage of discharge of

sewerage water with assistance of Police and the

petitioner also faces the imminent danger of sealing of

his premises. The Show Cause Notice under Annexure-

16 was in fact issued under Section 91(1) of the Act,

which inter-alia provides for time not less than 5 days,

but not more than 15 days to remove any unauthorized

activities as contained therein, however, the proviso to

Section 91(1) of the Act makes a caveat that no such

order shall be made unless the owner or the person

concerned has been given reasonable opportunity to

W.P.(C) No.30869 of 2026 Page 6 of 8

show cause why the order should not be made. No

doubt, Section 91(2) of the Act provides an effective

and efficacious remedy to the petitioner to approach

the Appellate Authority, but mere existence of

alternative remedy could not debar a person to

challenge the illegal and unauthorized act of the

authority or the order passed by the authority without

jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.

5. It is plain and clear that the petitioner has not

been provided with any reasonable opportunity, much

less no opportunity, but reasonable opportunity as

provided U/S.91(2) of the Act means an opportunity

that is required to be provided for reasonable time to

the affected person to place his case before the

authority concerned. Law is equally clear that if an

order is passed without any authority or jurisdiction,

the same being nullity cannot confer right on the

authority passing such order to proceed against the

aggrieved party. In this case, there is clear violation of

principle of Natural Justice and, thereby, the claim of

W.P.(C) No.30869 of 2026 Page 7 of 8

the petitioner is squarely maintainable under writ

jurisdiction, but the authority concerned may proceed

afresh in accordance with law by providing sufficient

opportunity to the petitioner as admissible under Act

and Rules made applicable to this case. In the aforesaid

facts and circumstance and on consideration of the

documents produced before this Court, it is found that

the authority concerned has proceeded against the

petitioner in undue haste and without providing

reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and, thereby,

the principle of Natural Justice being violated for the

impugned order being passed without following the due

procedure of law, the impugned order under Annexure-

1 is unsustainable and is liable to be set-aside.

6. In the result, the present Writ Petition stands

allowed and the impugned order at Annexure-1 stands

quashed, but the matter is remitted back to the

authority concerned for proceeding afresh in

accordance with law by providing reasonable

opportunity to the petitioner to show cause and place

W.P.(C) No.30869 of 2026 Page 8 of 8

his case in terms of the Act and Rules. However, it is

made clear that the Show Cause Notices have not been

quashed or interfered with, but the authority concerned

may proceed against the petitioner from the stage of

show cause by giving fresh date in terms of the Act.

7. Pending IA No.18474 of 2026 stands disposed

of.

(G. Satapathy)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

Dated the 24

th

day of September, 2026/Subhasmita