Orissa High Court
M/S. Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Harbinder Singh Deengra & Another …. … on 2 July, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.17270 of 2025
M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., .... Petitioner
Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela
Mr. Sidhartha Sahu, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Nirod Kumar Sahu, Advocate
-versus-
Harbinder Singh Deengra & another .... Opposite Parties
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Order No. ORDER 01. 02.07.2025
W.P.(C) No.17270 of 2025 & I.A. No.9576 of 2025
This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Assailing interim order of stay dated 23.04.2025 passed by the
learned District Judge, Sundargarh in FAO No.8 of 2025, which was
preferred against an order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the Estate Officer,
Rourkela in P.P. Case No.5018 of 2024, the petitioner has come up
before this Court alleging that said interim order passed in the FAO is not
in conformity with statutory mandate contained in Section 9(3) of the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for
short “PP Act, 1971“).
3. Sri Sidhartha Sahu, learned counsel on behalf of Sri Nirod
Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently
submitted that the opposite party no.1, the power of attorney holder
running a canteen in the premises of RSP, Rourkela on behalf of opposite
party no.2, who is a licensee of the premises since 1999, having
approached this Court on many occasions by filing writ petitions at
different stages could manage to stall the eviction proceeding despite
violation of the conditional interim orders passed by this Court. At
Page 1 of 2
present, in spite of dismissal of writ petitions, having filed Appeal under
Section 9 of the PP Act, the opposite parties are protected by virtue of the
interim orders passed by the learned District Judge, Sundargarh till
disposal of appeal without imposition of any condition(s), thereby the
entire process of eviction gets frustrated. Sri Sahu, learned counsel laid
emphasis on sub-section (4) of Section 9 of the PP Act to contend that
though the interim order is passed on 23.04.2025 in the afore-noted FAO,
the appeal being not disposed of within the time-frame specified in the
said provision, the interim order without specifying conditions loses it
enforceability.
4. This Court having heard Sri Sahu, learned counsel for the
petitioner and taking note of the provisions contained in Section 9 of the
PP Act, perceives prima facie that the impugned interim order dated
23.04.2025 without putting forth any condition(s) as stipulated in sub-
section (3) of Section 9 of the PP Act is untenable.
5. Issue notice to the opposite parties by registered post/ speed post
with A.D., requisites for which shall be filed within three working days.
If the requisites are filed within the time stipulated, Office shall send
notice to the said opposite parties fixing a short returnable date.
6. List this matter in the week commencing 25.08.2025.
7. In view of the facts pleaded in the writ petition and the
submissions made by Sri Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, as an interim measure, there shall be stay of operation of the
order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Sundargarh
in FAO No.8 of 2025 till the next date of listing.
Signature Not
Verified (M.S. Raman)
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANORANJAN
Judge
SAMAL
Designation: PERSONAL
ASSISTANT
Reason: Authentication
Location:MRS
Orissa High Court,
Cuttack
Date: 02-Jul-2025 15:08:18 Page 2 of 2