BINOD PARICHHA vs STATE OF ODISHA

WP(C)/14438/2026
ODHC010306092026
2026:OHC:274-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


W.P.(C) No. 14438 of 2026
CNR No.ODHC010306092026

Binod Parichha and others …. Petitioners

-versus-
State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties


Advocates appeared in this case:

For Petitioners : Mr. Arjuna Charana Behera, Advocate
Mr. Bharat Chandra Panda, Advocate

For Opposite Parties-State : Mr. Debashis Tripathy,
Additional Government Advocate

CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE
AND
HON’BLE M R JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

J U D G M E N T
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
st
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 31 October, 2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. It is one of the classical examples where the litigants are
misusing and/or abusing the process of law in approaching the Court
when the essential reliefs claimed in an earlier litigation are denied
and/or rejected and there is no reflection of such facts in the instant
writ petition filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
W.P.(C) No.14438 of 2026 Page 1 of 8

2.
The petitioners initially filed a writ petition being W.P.(C)
th
No.7763 of 2024 before this Court assailing a Notification dated 20
December, 2022 issued by the Tahasildar, Paralakhemundi inviting
objections to lease out the Plot No.206 to an extent of Ac.34.031
decimals and Plot No.208 to an extent of Ac.3.660 decimals under
Khata No.100 situated in Talasingh village in the district of Gajapati.
nd
The said writ petition came up for disposal on 22 August, 2024
wherein the Court, after noticing that the land had already been
th
leased out pursuant to the order dated 20 February, 2023 passed by
st
the said Tahasildar, Paralakhemundi and the sanction order dated 1
March, 2023 passed by the Collector, Gajapati, the reliefs claimed in
the said writ petition touching upon the said notification inviting the
objection are not sustainable and ultimately disposed of with an
observation that in the event, the petitioners felt aggrieved by such
order, it is open to them to approach the Appellate Authority.
3. Despite such liberty having granted to assail the order
granting a lease in favour of the company to establish a chemical
fertilizer plant, the pleadings made in the instant writ petition do not
reveal that the petitioners in fact have approached the Appellate
Authority assailing the said order. Obviously, such facts would not
be evident from the instant writ petition as the petitioners grossly
W.P.(C) No.14438 of 2026 Page 2 of 8

suppressed the filing of the earlier writ petition and its disposal on
nd
22 August, 2024.
4. The instant writ petition in the nature of Public Interest
Litigation is taken out giving an illusory cause of action with a
clever draftsmanship that setting up of the chemical fertilizer plant
would create an impact on the lives of the inhabitants of the said
locality. When a query was put to the appearing counsel for the
nd
petitioners on the contents of the said order dated 22 August, 2024,
a case is made out at the Bar without any pleadings in this regard
that the cause of action pleaded in the instant Public Interest
Litigation is different and distinct from the cause of action pleaded
in the earlier writ petition.
5. We are unable to comprehend the meaning and the scope
of expression ‘ cause of action ’ from the averments made in the
instant writ petition. The cause of action is not defined in any statute
but received its meaning from a plethora of judgments rendered by
the Courts of the country and beyond it. The cause of action is
neither a date nor a stray incident but is always considered as a
bundle of facts, improved, will entitle the person to adjudication by
the Court. The cause of action has to be discerned from the pleadings
to be read in its entirety and segregation and picking up of one
W.P.(C) No.14438 of 2026 Page 3 of 8

sentence or segregating one sentence from another is always
eschewed. The Court has to find out the cause of action upon reading
the averments made in seriatim and, in the event, it does not disclose
the cause of action, such frivolous litigation should be nipped in the
bud as there is hardly any room for such litigations.
6. Once the Court finds that the petitioners are guilty of
suppression of gross material facts, the person who does not
approach the Court with clean hand should be dealt with stern hand
and should be shown the doors of the Court immediately.
7.
We are conscious of a distinction between ‘ suppression of
facts ’ and ‘ suppression of material facts ’ . In former case, non-
disclosure of the fact which does not have any intricate nexus with
the cause of action does not invite the dismissal of the proceedings
on the ground of suppression of fact but the fact which is material
and pertinent and constitutes an integral part of the cause of action, if
not disclosed, the Court shall dismiss the writ petition with some
compensatory costs to be imposed upon such recalcitrant litigants.
8. A litigant should not be permitted to steal the march from
the corridor of the Court by suppressing the material facts and
W.P.(C) No.14438 of 2026 Page 4 of 8

keeping the Court in dark on the real issues as wrongdoer should not
be permitted to reap the benefit from its own wrong.
9. Since various remedies are provided under the statute as
well as the Constitutional provision and if the recourse is taken to
one of such forums and did not emerge successful therefrom, it is
preposterous to suggest that the same person would invoke another
forum and re-agitate the same grievance. It is a fundamental policy
of this country that every litigation must attain its finality. Because
of such public policy having adopted by the sovereign Government,
the concept of res judicata has gained importance in this regard
which forecloses and creates a complete embargo in re-determining
and/or deciding an issue which was substantially and directly an
issue in the earlier litigation having decided by the Court.
10. The genesis of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 is the fulcrum of such public policy and ubiquitously applied in
every litigation filed before the Court. The said Section contains
several explanations which constitute a part of the statute and
Explanation-IV vividly reflects that if a point which was available to
a litigant in an earlier round of litigation having not taken, it will be
deemed that the said point was involved in the said litigation and the
same cannot be agitated in the subsequent litigation.
W.P.(C) No.14438 of 2026 Page 5 of 8

11.
The plea that the setting up of the chemical fertilizer plant
would impact the lives of the inhabitants was available when the said
notification inviting objections was assailed and the Court noticed
that the orders have been passed by the Tahasildar subsequently
received sanction from the Collector and the lease having executed
in favour of the said company.
12. The moment those facts are the foundation of denial of the
reliefs claimed by the petitioners in the earlier writ petition, it is not
open to the petitioners to agitate the same by using another forum
provided under the law. The matter can be viewed from another
angle as the Courts of the country have frowned upon the forum
shopping or the forum convenience. If multiple forums are provided
and each of the forums are competent to address the issues so raised,
the litigant should not be permitted to make a forum shopping when
one of the forums on merit declined to grant the relief by passing a
reasoned order. Once a forum out of many has been explored and/or
exhausted, it impliedly forecloses the other forum for re-visitation,
reconsideration and/or re-determination of the same issue already
decided by one forum at an earlier point of time.
13.
The facts revealed that the Government, after taking
recourse to the statutory provisions, issued the notification inviting
W.P.(C) No.14438 of 2026 Page 6 of 8

objections from every quarters which was assailed before this Court
and in course of the hearing, the Court noticed that after the hearing
was concluded, the land is settled in favour of the said company
upon receiving the sanction from the Collector and, in fact, the lease
has also been executed by the Government. The moment such facts
discerned, the petitioners cannot take a route of the Public Interest
Litigation and take a plea which was very much available at the time
of previous writ petition filed by them in this Court.
14. However, Mr. Debashis Tripathy, learned Additional
Government Advocate (AGA) submits that the plot which is
demised to the company after taking recourse to the provisions of the
statute or in fact encroached by the petitioners. According to him, it
is a calculated exercise to protect their unauthorized and illegal
possession by way of encroachment and also preventing the
authorities from taking steps for their removal therefrom.
15. In such scenario, it is evident that the petitioners are not
interested in raising the issue relating to a large section of the public
but wanted to settle their own personal scores. A busybody or a
warfarer should not be permitted to misuse the extraordinary remedy
provided in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. The moment the
petitioners appear to have intentions to settle their personal issues
W.P.(C) No.14438 of 2026 Page 7 of 8

which eradicate the sense of a public issue, the Court should not
show any indulgence to such unscrupulous litigants to misuse and/or
abuse such extraordinary remedy.
16. From whatever angle we look at, not only the petitioners
have not made out any case which warrants invocation of this extra
remedy as the pleadings involve a public element but to settle their
personal scores, but the petitioners are also guilty of gross
suppression of material facts, which if disclosed, would act as an
interdict in maintaining the instant litigation.
17.
The instant writ petition sans merit and the same is hereby
dismissed but in the circumstance with no order as to costs.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice

(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge

Sisira
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SISIRA KUMAR BEHERA
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 06-Nov-2026 13:01:18
W.P.(C) No.14438 of 2026 Page 8 of 8