Authority: Orissa High Court, Cuttack

Order Date: 24 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: M/s Lingaraj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar (private limited company) represented by its Director and counsel G. Mukherjee, Senior Counsel, with Ms. Amrita Mishra.
  • Opposite Parties: State of Odisha and others, represented by AGA Mr. R.B. Mishra.
  • The petitioner challenged an order dated 11.09.2026 (Annexure‑1) issued by OPNo.3 in UAP Case No.863 of 2026 (NZ) and Show Cause Notices No.45308 dated 31.07.2026 (Annexure‑14) and No.445 dated 05.09.2026 (Annexure‑16).
  • The Show Cause Notice under Annexure‑16 required the petitioner to appear before the Deputy Commissioner‑Cum‑Authorized Officer, ODA Court (NZ), BMC, Bhubaneswar, on 25.09.2026 at 10:30 AM, to explain alleged unauthorized commercial use of residential premises, and to submit documents within 15 days.
  • Despite the notice, the authority issued the impugned order on 11.09.2026 directing closure of commercial activities, demolition of unauthorized development, and sealing of the premises, along with instructions to disconnect electricity, water supply, and sewerage with police assistance.
  • The notice was issued under Section 91(1) of the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982, which mandates a period of not less than 5 days and not more than 15 days for removal of unauthorized activities and requires that no order be made unless the owner is given a reasonable opportunity to show cause.
  • The petitioner argued that the order was passed before the scheduled hearing, violating the principle of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g) & 21 of the Constitution.
  • The AGA contended that the authority possessed the power to pass such an order and opposed the petition.
  • The Court examined the record, noting that the Show Cause Notice dated 05.09.2026 gave a 15‑day window, with the hearing fixed for 25.09.2026, yet the order was issued on 11.09.2026, thereby denying the petitioner any reasonable opportunity to be heard.
  • The Court emphasized that the proviso to Section 91(1) requires a reasonable opportunity, and while Section 91(2) provides an appellate remedy, it does not preclude challenging an order passed without jurisdiction.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held the impugned order (Annexure‑1) to be a nullity, violative of natural justice, and consequently quashed it.
  • The matter was remitted to the authority to re‑initiate proceedings in accordance with the Act, providing the petitioner a fresh date to show cause.
  • The Show Cause Notices themselves were not quashed; the authority may proceed from the stage of show cause after issuing a new date.
  • Pending IA No.18474 of 2026 was disposed of.

Topics: Regulatory Compliance, Natural Justice