IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.20580 of 2026 Banambar Mallik ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Sameer Kumar Das -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 09.07.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to approve the appointment of the petitioner and to release his grant-in-aid under the provisions of Page 1 of 4. GIA Order, 1994 notwithstanding the earlier order of rejection dtd. 11.01.2018 as his case is squarely covered by the ratio decided by this Hon’ble High Court in FAO No.509 of 2014 disposed of on 19.03.2025 confirmed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a batch of cases and in alternative direct the Opp. Party No.2 to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-5, within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper; And/or pas any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions in the fitness of the case;”

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the present Petitioner who stand in a similar footing with the Appellant in FAO No.509 of 2014, which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench on 19.03.2025 and eventually upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, claims similar benefits at par with the Appellant in FAO No.509 of 2014. He further contended that claiming similar benefits the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a detailed representation dated 07.04.2026 at Annexure-5 to the writ petition. He further submitted that since no decision has been taken on the representation of the Petitioner even though several months have elapsed in the meantime. Challenging such inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, Page 2 of 4. contended that since the issue involved in the present writ petition is release of GIA, the present writ petition is not maintainable. He further contended that in the event the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Party No.2 and his grievance is still pending before the Opposite Party No.2, he will have no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to take a lawful decision on such representation within a stipulated period of time.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court observes that the sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is the inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision on their representation dated 07.04.2026 which is stated to be pending before the Opposite Party No.2 for consideration. Taking into consideration the aforesaid factual scenario, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner in view of the judgments of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. It is needless to mention here that the claim of the Petitioner shall be governed by the judgment of this Court as has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further directed Page 3 of 4. that the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 13-Jul-2026 10:15:07 Page 4 of 4.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.20580 of 2026 Banambar Mallik ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Sameer Kumar Das -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 09.07.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to approve the appointment of the petitioner and to release his grant-in-aid under the provisions of Page 1 of 4. GIA Order, 1994 notwithstanding the earlier order of rejection dtd. 11.01.2018 as his case is squarely covered by the ratio decided by this Hon’ble High Court in FAO No.509 of 2014 disposed of on 19.03.2025 confirmed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a batch of cases and in alternative direct the Opp. Party No.2 to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-5, within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper; And/or pas any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions in the fitness of the case;”

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the present Petitioner who stand in a similar footing with the Appellant in FAO No.509 of 2014, which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench on 19.03.2025 and eventually upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, claims similar benefits at par with the Appellant in FAO No.509 of 2014. He further contended that claiming similar benefits the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a detailed representation dated 07.04.2026 at Annexure-5 to the writ petition. He further submitted that since no decision has been taken on the representation of the Petitioner even though several months have elapsed in the meantime. Challenging such inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, Page 2 of 4. contended that since the issue involved in the present writ petition is release of GIA, the present writ petition is not maintainable. He further contended that in the event the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Party No.2 and his grievance is still pending before the Opposite Party No.2, he will have no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to take a lawful decision on such representation within a stipulated period of time.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court observes that the sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is the inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision on their representation dated 07.04.2026 which is stated to be pending before the Opposite Party No.2 for consideration. Taking into consideration the aforesaid factual scenario, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner in view of the judgments of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. It is needless to mention here that the claim of the Petitioner shall be governed by the judgment of this Court as has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further directed Page 3 of 4. that the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 13-Jul-2026 10:15:07 Page 4 of 4.