PRAKASH BEHERA vs DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KEONJHAR DIVISION, KEONJHAR — WP(C)/7925/2026

Case under Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: ODHC010154982026

Filing Number

WP(C)/8987/2026

Filing Date

27-Feb-2026

Registration No

WP(C)/7925/2026

Registration Date

12-Mar-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice B. P. Routray

Coram

Mr. Justice B. P. Routray

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

FOREST LAWS ( 14 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 09-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PRAKASH BEHERA

    Adv. GOPAL CHARAN MOHANTY,S.ACHARYA,S.ACHARYA, S.ACHARYA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KEONJHAR DIVISION, KEONJHAR

  2. 2.AO CUM ACF, KEONJHAR DIVISION

  3. 3.FORESTER OF GHATAGAON SECTION OF GHATAGAON RANGE OFFICE, KEONJHAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice B. P. RoutrayView PDF

    The High Court of Orissa dismissed the writ petition filed by Sri Prakash Behera seeking interim release of his vehicle (OD-34-D-3710) during pendency of confiscation proceedings under Section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act. The court held that in the absence of any statutory provision allowing interim release of vehicles during such confiscation proceedings, it could not entertain the petitioner's prayer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Fresh Admission

    Mr. Justice B. P. Routray

  4. 27-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/7925/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Orissa dismissed the writ petition filed by Sri Prakash Behera seeking interim release of his vehicle (OD-34-D-3710) during pendency of confiscation proceedings under Section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act. The court held that in the absence of any statutory provision allowing interim release of vehicles during such confiscation proceedings, it could not entertain the petitioner's prayer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case