'Sinister Motive To Gain Popularity': Orissa High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking To Rename 'Cuttack' As 'Katak', Imposes ₹10K Costs
The Orissa High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to rename the city of 'Cuttack' as 'Katak'. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman found the case to be a publicity driven litigation and imposed a cost of rupees ten thousand. “Once a litigation of such nature has already been dismissed with categorical finding that it...
The Orissa High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to rename the city of 'Cuttack' as 'Katak'. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman found the case to be a publicity driven litigation and imposed a cost of rupees ten thousand.
“Once a litigation of such nature has already been dismissed with categorical finding that it is within the exclusive domain of the Government whether to describe the spelling of “Cuttack” as “Katak”, the present Public Interest Litigation on the self-same cause is not maintainable. It is one of such examples of publicity interest litigation than having a serious concern over the interest of public. The Court must frown upon such fancy litigation which has a sinister motive of gaining the popularity without having any element of a public interest in it.”
The petitioner Srujeet Khuntia filed a PIL seeking to rename the city of 'Cuttack' as 'Katak'. It was vehemently submitted on his behalf that “Cuttack” was spelt as “Katak” in many documents including the certificate issued by the Education Department, the Universities and the Colleges having great reputation in the country, and therefore, the Government cannot ignore such aspect and must restore such spelling.
The Court was, however, slow in entertaining such plea on the ground that it is within the exclusive domain of the executive to take a decision regarding names of places.
“The Court should not extend its powers enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in dealing with all such cases which is within the exclusive domain of the Government nor the Court should use the power conferred upon the Executives/Bureaucrats taking shelter under the aforesaid provision. The separation of powers is not only real but also be realized when litigation in the nature of public interest is filed before the Court,” it added.
Further, the Bench highlighted the fact that the petitioner had filed two identical petitions previously as well. One of such petitions was disposed of giving him liberty to serve representation upon the government for the said purpose. The second petition was dismissed on the ground of lack of public interest and breach of separation of power.
The Court was particularly irked by the recalcitrance of the petitioner in filing the petition again despite previous dismissal of a similar petition. It therefore ordered–
“Frequent rejection of the public interest litigation filed by the petitioner has not precluded him from approaching the Court again and again so that at one point of time there may be a change of opinion….Since the petitioner is more interested in gaining some recognition, having remote connection with the public interest, we, therefore, dismiss the instant writ petition with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) to be deposited by the petitioner before the Member Secretary, Odisha State Legal Services Authority, Juvenile Justice Fund, Cuttack within a period of two weeks from date.”
Case Title: Srujeet Khuntia v. State of Odisha
Case No: W.P.(C) PIL No. 6181 of 2026
Date of Order: April 15, 2026
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Deba Narayan Pattnaik, Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. Debashis Tripathy, Addl. Government Advocate
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 45