IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.1927 of 2025 Krishna Bapi Raju G …. Appellant Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Kajal Sahoo, Advocate -versus-

Union of India and others …. Respondents Mr. D.R. Bhokta, CGC for Union of India Mr. Prasanna Kumar Nanda, Advocate for Respondent No.2 Mr. Lalatendu Samantaray, Advocate for Respondent No.3 CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE AND R JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN HON’BLE M

ORDER

Order No. 17.12.2025

02. 1. We are conscious of the proposition of law that the appellate Court should be slow and circumspect in interfering with the order passed on exercise of discretion vested in law, unless the Court finds that such exercise of discretion is irrational, unreasonable and beyond the settled legal parameters.

2. The moment the discretionary orders have challenged before the appellate Court, it is imperative on the part of the Court, at the first instance, to record brief reasons with regard to passing an interim order pending final adjudication. It would assist the appellate Court to ascertain whether the discretion exercised by the Court warrants interference or not.

3. The importance of providing the reasons has been time and