Legal applications must be acknowledged and considered, regardless of prior rejections, ensuring the right to seek legal redress.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of the India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner against the Opposite Parties praying for directing the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) to dispose of the grievance application dated 20.11.2024 of the Petitioner pending before him (O.P. No.2) in relation to restoration of possession of the schedule landed properties of this writ petition in favour of the petitioner indicated in Annexure-3 Series and to pass a reasoned order within a stipulated period of time.

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Sr. Counsel for the Third Party Intervener.

3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, the Petitioner is the Salagadia Happy and Holy Home Society, which has been represented by its Secretary Mr. Satish Kumar Bacheli, to which, the learned Sr. Counsel for the third party intervener objected contending that, Mr.Satish Kumar Bacheli is not the Secretary of the Petitioner i.e. Salagadia Happy and Holy Home Society, but, Mr.Bikram Jena is the Secretary of Salagadia Happy and Holy Home Society through whose representation, the petition for intervention has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended for directing the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) to dispose of the grievance application dated 20.11.2024 pending before the O.P. No.2, the learned additional standing counsel for the O.P. Nos.1 to 3 did not oppose the same, but, the learned Sr. Counsel for the third party intervener seriously objected/opposed contending that, the Petitioner has no locus standi to file the representation dated 20.11.2024 before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack (O.P. No.2), as the similar nature of representation submitted earlier on behalf of the Petitioner before the O.P. No.2 has already been rejected, for which, the so-called representation dated 20.11.2024 of the Petitioner before the O.P. No.2 cannot be taken into consideration by the O.P. No.2 being non-entertainable under law and there is no necessity under law to consider and dispose of the same by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack (O.P. No.2).

5. Now, the question arises, whether any application/representation of any Party like the representation dated 20.11.2024 of the Petitioner pending before the O.P. No.2 is required to be considered and disposed of by the O.P. No.2 or the same is to be kept pending before the O.P. No.2 without being considered?

6. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-

(i) In a case between Moti Dei Vs. Cuttack Bank Ltd. and others , AIR 1964 (Orissa) 185 in Para No.6 that, Once a party files an application alleging therein certain matters for consideration, the Court is bound to hear the Party. It is open to the Court to reject the Party’s contention, but, it is not open to the Court to say that, the Party is not entitled to hearing as the identical matter had been decided by a previous order.

(ii) In a case between Shraban Kumar Agrawalla Vs. State of Orissa , (2002) 22 OCR 365 that, When, an application is filed before the Court, it would have been appropriate for the Court to accept and register the same as a case by following the provisions laid down in the GRCO and the Cr.P.C. and the Court should not have disposed of that application by making an endorsement on the back of