court news apr-jun
TRANSCRIPT
Observance of “World Environment Day” on 5.6.2010. Guests on the dais-Hon’ble Shri Justice D.P. Mohapatra, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, Hon’ble Shri Justice L.
Mohapatra, Judge, Orissa High Court, Shri J.P. Das, Registrar (Judicial), Shri S. Pujahari, Member Secretary,OSLSA and Prof. Madhab Chandra Das, Member Appellate Authority, Water (P.C.P.) Act
Observance of Lawyers’ Day on 28.4.2010
Hon’ble Shri Justice L.Mohapatra Hon’ble Shri Justice I.Mahanty Hon’ble Shri Justice B.K.Patel
Editorial Board
CHIEF JUSTICE’S BUNGALOWKILLA FORT, CUTTACK - 753 001Phone : (0671) 2507808 (Off.)
2301703 (Res)2301505 (Res)
Fax: (0671) 2301703 (Res)(0671) 2508446 (Off.)
21st July, 2010
FROM THE DESK OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE
I have great pleasure in releasing the XIIth issue of Court News which is
the Second Issue published after I took over as the Chief Justice of this High Court.
This issue contains brief information about the State judiciary during the quarter
ending 30th June, 2010.
I take this opportunity to remind all those connected with the dispensation
of justice that pendency of cases has been taking an upward surge and it is their
responsibility to prevent the same. It can only be done by effective court and case
management by applying the various methods evolved for dispensation of speedyjustice.
I am sure this issue of the Court News would be worth reading and
disseminate vital information to the people about the functioning of the Courts.
(V. GOPALA GOWDA)
CourtNews
EDITORIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. SINGHVI,JUDGE, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
“... Thanks for your letter dated May 3, 2010 and EleventhIssue of ‘Court News’.
I am sure that under your able leadership the OrissaHigh Court will achieve new heights in doing justice tothe common man ...”
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL R.DAVE,JUDGE, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
“... Let me also thank you for sending me a copy of‘Court News’, which I found to be very good and thatwould be of great help to all concerned with OrissaHigh Court ...”
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL,CHIEF JUSTICE, PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
“... I am very thankful to you for sending me EleventhIssue of ‘Court News’ published by Orissa High Court.Besides providing vital information regarding theappointments, transfers, sanctioned and workingstrength of Judges and institution, disposal and pendencyof cases in Orissa High Court and the Courts subordinateto it, the News Letter outlines some recent Orissa HighCourt judgments of public importance and highlightsthe activities carried out and initiatives taken by the StateJudicial Academy and the State Legal Services Authority.The issue is very informative and useful for the legalfraternity and also the common citizen.
I am confident that publication of the quarterly NewsLetter by Orissa High Court will continue to enlighten thereaders with authentic information on the working ofjudiciary in the State and will serve the purpose ofpromoting transparency and accountability and bringingabout improvement in the working of Justice DeliverySystem. ...”
CourtNews
CONTENTS
1
01. Names of Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’bleJudges of Orissa High Court at present. ... 2
02. Judicial Control Over Public Administration,Practices and Provisions – Justice A.S. Naidu ... 3
03. Sanctioned strength & vacancies in Orissa High Court. ... 5
04. Institution, Disposal and Pendency of Cases in the High Court ... 5from 1.4.2010 to 30.6.2010.
05. Sanctioned strength & vacancies in District & Subordinate Courts ... 5
06. Institution, Disposal and Pendency of Cases in ... 6District & Subordinate Courts from 1.4.2010 to 30.6.2010
07. Outlines of some recent Orissa High Court Judgments ... 10
08. Major Events ... 28
09. Activities of High Court Legal Services Committee ... 28
10. Programmes attended by Hon’ble Chief Justice, ... 29Hon’ble Judges of Orissa High Court at Bhopal & other places.
11. Activities of Orissa State Legal Services Authority ... 30
12. Activities of Orissa Judicial Academy ... 32
CourtNews
2
HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE ORISSA HIGH COURTHON’BLE JUDGES OF THE ORISSA HIGH COURTHON’BLE JUDGES OF THE ORISSA HIGH COURTHON’BLE JUDGES OF THE ORISSA HIGH COURTHON’BLE JUDGES OF THE ORISSA HIGH COURT
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Hon’ble Shri Justice V. Gopala Gowda, B.Sc., LL.B.
HON’BLE JUDGES
Hon’ble Shri Justice B.P. Das, M.A., LL.B.
Hon’ble Shri Justice L. Mohapatra, B.Sc., LL.B.
Hon’ble Shri Justice A.S. Naidu, B.Sc., LL.B.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Pradip Kumar Mohanty, LL.B.
Hon’ble Shri Justice M.M. Das, M.A., LL.B.
Hon’ble Shri Justice R.N. Biswal, M.A., LL.M.
Hon’ble Shri Justice I. Mahanty, LL.M.
Hon’ble Kumari Justice Sanju Panda, B.A., LL.B.
Hon’ble Shri Justice B.N. Mahapatra, M.A., LL.B., PGDTL.
Hon’ble Shri Justice B.P. Ray, LL.B.
Hon’ble Shri Justice S.C. Parija, LL.B.
Hon’ble Shri Justice B.K. Patel, M.A., LL.B.
Hon’ble Shri Justice B.K. Nayak, LL.M.
Hon’ble Shri Justice S.K.Mishra, M.A., LL.B.
Hon’ble Shri Justice C.R.Dash, LL.M.
CourtNews
JUDICIAL CONTROL OVER PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION,PRACTICES AND PROVISIONS
- Justice A.S.Naidu
The subject is of wide importance. There is diversity of views about the definition of PublicAdministration. The State owes its commitment to provide services for the welfare of its citizens. Significanceof the Public Administration, as an instrument of governance, development and social change is anintegral feature of a welfare State guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Public Administrationconstitutes the Executive Wing of a modern Government. It comprises of Political, Executive andBureaucracy.
The Public Administration has many distinguishing features and functions within the framework oflaw of the land. No administration can afford to take any action which is not sanctioned by the law. Thepublic administrators are also bound by a code of moral ethics and norms of propriety. On the otherhand, Judiciary is an essential limb of a State structure, governed under Constitutional democracy. Itplays a vital role in Administration of Justice which protects mandates of the Constitution and the peoplefrom the arbitrary interference and operation of the administrators. Independence of Judiciary assuresjustice irrespective of caste, class, meek and mighty from the monopoly of administration.
There exists an intricate relationship between the Executive and Judiciary. Judiciary functions withthe support of the Executive to impart justice, but it maintains its independent feature without beinginfluenced by the Executive. This intricate relationship is based on the principle of ethical jural relationship.The summary of such defined relationship is termed as administrative law.
The administrative activities may be statutory or non-statutory. Such activities may be quashi-legislative, quasi-judicial and/or purely administrative in character. These powers or authority are notunfettered and are subjected to the acid test of rights guaranteed under the Constitution, statutes,Rules, Regulations and Instructions. Any occasion of exceeding its jurisdiction, transgressing the limitsor abusing the powers by the administration warrants intervention of Judiciary. The court intervenes incase it notices any malfeasance (abuse of power) and misfeasance (error of law) in the administrativeorder/ decision. If any of the actions/ decisions suffers from the vice of deparature from procedure oran error of fact is apparent on the face of records, the Judiciary steps in. The Judiciary also intervenesif the administration acts ultra vires the Constitution, Statutes, Rules and Regulations.
The Judiciary exercises its control by means of a judicial review of administrative acts, decisionsas and when such action/ decision are brought to its notice. In case of legally enforceable rights whichare contractual or tortious in nature, the court adjudicates the dispute against the administrators in theform of a suit subject to the limitation provided under Part XII and Part XIII of the Constitution. Any overt-act culminating in criminal prosecution against a public officer in due discharge of public duty requiressanction as provided under Sections 196 and 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to invitejudicial scrutiny. The Judiciary exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction in the form of prerogative writs likeMandamus or Certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for alleged violation ofconstitutional, fundamental and legal rights of citizens in given circumstances in order to secure theends of justice. Judicial control or Review over administrative acts, to ensure their legality, is generallyexercised on any of the following terms:-
(i) Courts do not interfere in cases where the decision is better left at the administrative discretion;(ii) The courts do not interfere with administrative findings supported by substantial evidence;
3
CourtNews
(iii) Courts are reluctant to review administrative decisions relating to a legal right that is in thenature of a privilege, e.g. in case of gratuity;
(iv) Courts usually do not interfere in the essential functions of the government like revenuecollection, military matters, etc.
(v) Review lies only if a party which has a legal standing makes an application (locus standi);(vi) The complainant can apply to the court for review only if all the remedies have been exhausted;
and(vii) Negative orders are usually not revised.
During judicial review, the court has wide powers. It can even order the consideration of the matterde novo. However, the court declines to interfere in a policy decision unless the same is tainted witharbitrariness, unreasonableness and discrimination and/or is actuated with mala fide or amounts tocolourable exercise of power. In the judgment in BALCO case, the Hon’ble Apex Court declines tointerfere in a policy decision of selling out the public sector undertaking and confirmed the power of theadministration involving financial policy of the State.
The Judiciary exercises its prerogative on Writ petitions for alleged violation of natural justice.Principle of natural justice is an exclusive principle built in the administrative law. Natural Justice is basedon two basic doctrines, such as, (i) “nemo debet sesse jhudex in propria cause” (No one should bethe Judge in his cause); and (ii) audi alteram partem (Hear the other side). The Hon’ble Apex Court inthe case of S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India extended the scope of natural justice and categoricallyobserved that the administrative action must be supported by reasons, which is one of the basicrequirements of natural justice. The court does not issue a writ of prohibition, quo wuarranto or habeascorpus, as a matter of course. Such power is used cautiously. This innovative means of the Constitutionalreliefs are aimed at regulating the administration.
The courts by means of social/ public interest litigations awake the administration to implementits commitment in furtherance with the objective enshrined under the Constitution. These interventionsare very often subjected to sharp criticism. But a constructive approach will better serve public purposesat large.
Expeditious trial in respect of under-trial prisoners, protective measures in respect of environmentalhazards, are matters over which the Judiciary expresses its deepest concern. In a recent case, theHon’ble Supreme Court imposed exemplary compensation upon Himachal Pradesh Government forviolation of environmental laws and regulations.
The objective of Judicial Intervention/ Control is never intended to destroy the autonomy ofadministration. Any intervention is subject to self-regulated restrictions. This relation between Administrationand Judiciary is the unique feature of our Constitution. Judiciary is rigid when administrative actions aresubjected to judicial scrutiny. It is flexible in case of policy decisions and its implementation within theframework of the Constitution, the Acts and Regulations.
The nicety of Indian Constitution is the harmony maintained between the three Wings-Legislative,Executive and Judiciary. On the one hand all the THREE are very close to each other, and at the sametime they are FIRM in discharging their statutory duties and/or Constitutional obligations. They do so,bereft of any encroachment on each other, strictly in consonance with the Mandate of the Constitutionand that is how the Democracy in this country survives while that has failed in other neighbouringcountries.
4
CourtNews 5
SANCTIONED STRENGTH & VACANCIES IN HIGH COURT (As on 30.6.2010)
INSTITUTION, DISPOSAL AND PENDENCY OF CASES IN THE HIGH COURT(From 1.4.2010 to 30.6.2010)
MAIN CASES
Sanctioned Strength Working Strength Vacancies
17 + 5* = 22 13 + 3* = 16 4 + 2* = 6
* Addl. Judges
Pendency as on1.4.2010
Institution duringthe period
Total disposalduring the period
Pendency as on30.6.2010
Civil Criminal Civil Criminal Civil Criminal Civil Criminal117067 26445 6699 8145 5374 7397 118392 27193
MISC. CASES
Pendency as on1.4.2010
Institution duringthe period
Total disposalduring the period
Pendency as on30.6.2010
Civil Criminal Civil Criminal Civil Criminal Civil Criminal118427 1554 6767 2157 5349 1979 119845 1732
TOTAL NO. OF CIVIL & CRIMINAL CASES DURING THE PERIOD(From 1.4.2010 to 30.6.2010)
Opening Balance Institution Disposed of
CivilCriminal
235494 13466 10723 23823727999 10302 9376 28925
Pending
SANCTIONED STRENGTH & VACANCIES INDISTRICT AND SUBORDINATE COURTS
(A) DISTRICT & SUBORDINATE COURTS (As on 30.6.2010) (Regular Establishment)
(B) FAST TRACK COURTS (As on 30.6.2010)
Category of Posts SanctionedStrength
WorkingStrength
Sl. No. Vacancies
1. District Judge Cadre2. Sr. Civil Judge3. Civil Judge
98 85 13134 131 03259 221 38
4. Special Judicial Magistrates 18 14 04
Functional Strength Present Strength Vacancies35 35 Nil
CourtNews
6S
TAT
EM
EN
TS
SH
OW
ING
INS
TIT
UT
ION
, DIS
PO
SA
L &
PE
ND
EN
CY
OF
CIV
IL &
CR
IMIN
AL
CA
SE
S IN
TH
E S
UB
OR
DIN
AT
E J
UD
ICIA
RY
FRO
M 1
.4.2
010
TO 3
0.6.
2010
Nam
e of
the
Judg
eshi
p
CIV
IL S
UIT
S
Ope
ning
Bal
ance
as o
n1.
4.20
10
Inst
itutio
nD
ispo
sed
ofP
ende
ncy
as o
n30
.6.2
010
CIV
IL A
PPEA
LSC
IVIL
MIS
C. A
PPEA
LS
Ope
ning
Bal
ance
as o
n1.
4.20
10
Inst
itutio
nD
ispo
sed
ofP
ende
ncy
as o
n30
.6.2
010
Ope
ning
Bal
ance
as o
n1.
4.20
10
Inst
itutio
nD
ispo
sed
ofP
ende
ncy
as o
n30
.6.2
010
Bal
asor
e
Bol
angi
r
Cut
tack
Dhe
nkan
al
Gan
jam
Kal
ahan
di
Keo
njha
r
Khu
rda
Kor
aput
May
urbh
anj
Phul
bani
Puri
Sam
balp
ur
Sund
arga
rh
Tota
l :
968
189
1619
412
320
121
128
874
136
256
37 432
315
196
6003
564
136
862
150
284
121
55 281
78 186
43 422
200
83 3465
2073
4
2772
2370
6
5029
4619
1732
1204
1541
8
1125
4713
463
6724
4921
1697
9485
7
62 32 83 23 46 20 11 20 17 12 05 28 33 16 408
29 21 50 14 19 02 03 15 12 24 13 23 23 17 265
1788
601
1486
351
730
283
144
712
304
202
69 1042
353
393
8458
59 03 115
07 06 04 07 29 09 08 00 35 15 13 310
60 12 60 12 11 -- 04 15 07 04 02 27 13 06 233
971
128
907
83 203
77 43 517
109
69 20 574
80 106
3887
2033
0
2719
2294
9
4767
4583
1732
1131
1482
5
1067
4643
469
6714
4806
1584
9231
9
1755
590
1453
342
703
265
136
707
299
214
77 1037
343
394
8315
972
137
852
88 208
73 40 503
107
65 22 566
78 99 3810
CourtNews 7
CIV
IL R
EVIS
ION
SEX
ECUT
ION
PRO
CEED
ING
S
M.A
.C.T
. CAS
ESSE
SSIO
NS
CA
SES
CRIM
INAL
APP
EALS
145
58 437
127
163
11 56 61 93 46 15 144
125
106
1587
146
37 617
39 109
05 11 74 61 135
24 104
103
56 1521
1760
395
1186
413
4840
0330
291
835
6110
3010
0115
142
5111
6326
3834
385
149
58 388
94 95 28 58 102
117
63 55 93 197
79 1576
158
57 213
81 114
27 53 68 110
77 73 84 97 71 1283
1228
671
2592
652
2176
224
451
1205
663
452
337
1800
1192
468
1411
1
31 18 33 09 35 14 20 23 27 15 03 37 35 14 314
21 19 26 14 15 -- 04 07 28 03 47 25 16 56 281
567
475
481
193
362
334
208
326
319
155
102
346
167
178
4213
M.J
.Cs.
/ SPE
CIA
L A
CT
CA
SES
02 01 02 02 -- -- 01 03 -- 01 -- 01 11 01 25
04 -- -- 02 05 -- -- 01 -- 02 -- 03 03 03 23
21 31 26 06 23 07 03 40 01 03 -- 50 32 05 248
62 09 78 24 25 05 20 43 12 20 05 16 22 23 364
18 11 63 11 11 06 14 05 11 11 05 11 02 09 188
1537
773
2885
1870
1732
372
603
2118
769
728
199
801
1523
802
1671
0
683
80 1202
231
165
108
71 525
41 51 13 286
104
90 3650
509
62 775
133
126
73 42 336
36 73 10 239
101
65 2580
7998
715
1375
324
4425
3011
1137
183
7347
368
919
136
4917
0363
944
639
Nam
e of
the
Judg
eshi
pO
peni
ngB
alan
ceas
on
1.4.
2010
Inst
itutio
nD
ispo
sed
ofP
ende
ncy
as o
n30
.6.2
010
Ope
ning
Bal
ance
as o
n1.
4.20
10
Inst
itutio
nD
ispo
sed
ofP
ende
ncy
as o
n30
.6.2
010
Ope
ning
Bal
ance
as o
n1.
4.20
10
Inst
itutio
nD
ispo
sed
ofP
ende
ncy
as o
n30
.6.2
010
Bal
asor
eB
olan
gir
Cut
tack
Dhe
nkan
alG
anja
mK
alah
andi
Keo
njha
rK
hurd
aK
orap
ut
May
urbh
anj
Phu
lban
iP
uri
Sam
balp
urS
unda
rgar
hTo
tal :
Nam
e of
the
Judg
eshi
pO
peni
ngB
alan
ceas
on
1.4.
2010
Inst
itutio
nD
ispo
sed
ofP
ende
ncy
as o
n30
.6.2
010
Ope
ning
Bal
ance
as o
n1.
4.20
10
Inst
itutio
nD
ispo
sed
ofP
ende
ncy
as o
n30
.6.2
010
Ope
ning
Bal
ance
as o
n1.
4.20
10
Inst
itutio
nD
ispo
sed
ofP
ende
ncy
as o
n30
.6.2
010
Bal
asor
eB
olan
gir
Cut
tack
Dhe
nkan
alG
anja
mK
alah
andi
Keo
njha
rK
hurd
aK
orap
ut
May
urbh
anj
Phu
lban
iP
uri
Sam
balp
urS
unda
rgar
h
Tota
l :
23 30 24 06 28 07 02 38 01 04 -- 52 24 07 246
1491
775
2870
1857
1718
373
597
2080
768
719
199
796
1503
788
1653
4
7824
697
1332
623
4624
9110
7634
281
8446
871
118
836
0217
0061
443
569
1761
374
1204
412
6039
4929
687
335
7499
810
9016
042
1111
4125
8834
319
1237
670
2417
639
2195
223
446
1171
656
466
355
1791
1092
460
1381
8
557
476
474
198
342
320
192
310
320
143
146
334
148
220
4180
CourtNews
8N
ame
of th
eJu
dges
hip
Ope
ning
Bal
ance
as o
n1.
4.20
10
Inst
itutio
nD
ispo
sed
ofP
ende
ncy
as o
n30
.6.2
010
Ope
ning
Bal
ance
as o
n1.
4.20
10
Inst
itutio
nD
ispo
sed
ofP
ende
ncy
as o
n30
.6.2
010
Ope
ning
Bal
ance
as o
n1.
4.20
10
Inst
itutio
nD
ispo
sed
ofP
ende
ncy
as o
n30
.6.2
010
Bal
asor
eB
olan
gir
Cut
tack
Dhe
nkan
alG
anja
mK
alah
andi
Keo
njha
rK
hurd
aK
orap
ut
May
urbh
anj
Phu
lban
iP
uri
Sam
balp
urS
unda
rgar
hTo
tal :
Nam
e of
the
Judg
eshi
pO
peni
ng B
alan
ceas
on
1.4.
2010
Inst
itutio
nD
ispo
sed
ofP
ende
ncy
as o
n30
.6.2
010
Bal
asor
eB
olan
gir
Cut
tack
Dhe
nkan
alG
anja
mK
alah
andi
Keo
njha
rK
hurd
aK
orap
ut
May
urbh
anj
Phu
lban
iP
uri
Sam
balp
urS
unda
rgar
h
Tota
l :
CRIM
INAL
REV
ISIO
NSCR
IMIN
AL M
ISC.
CAS
ESSP
ECIA
L AC
T CA
SES
38 15 22 10 36 06 06 25 18 10 10 17 41 14 268
50 20 21 06 21 01 02 08 35 04 06 51 30 25 280
413
209
197
100
275
145
22 232
115
73 54 144
120
31 2130
451
310
862
427
810
160
351
962
380
263
117
520
646
369
6628
465
310
861
390
832
163
345
1008
380
265
104
524
636
347
6630
63 44 101
67 97 34 80 101
71 33 24 64 74 53 906
41 10 14 16 24 24 10 20 29 18 02 19 29 07 263
19 02 05 11 07 07 -- 22 14 04 01 16 07 04 119
492
204
294
304
287
342
73 371
297
77 41 277
222
44 3325
PREV
ENTI
ON
OF
CO
RR
UPT
ION
AC
T (V
IG. +
C.B
.I.)
20 04 08 -- 12 -- -- 34 08 -- -- -- 22 -- 108
06 10 07 -- 07 -- -- 32 08 -- -- -- 07 -- 77
531
128
535 -- 279 -- -- 866
128 -- -- -- 472
01 2940
425
214
196
96 260
140
18 215
132
67 50 178
109
42 2142
77 44 100
30 119
37 74 147
71 35 11 68 64 31 908
470
196
285
299
270
325
63 373
282
63 40 274
200
41 3181
517
134
534 -- 274 -- -- 864
128 -- -- -- 457
01 2909
CourtNews 9
Nam
e of
the
Judg
eshi
p
CRIM
INAL
CAS
ES O
F M
AGIS
TERI
AL C
OUR
TS
Ope
ning
Bal
ance
as
on 1
.4.2
010
Inst
itutio
nD
ispo
sed
of
Pend
ency
as
on 3
0.6.
2010
Bal
asor
e
Bol
angi
r
Cut
tack
Dhe
nkan
al
Gan
jam
Kal
ahan
di
Keo
njha
r
Khu
rda
Kor
aput
May
urbh
anj
Phul
bani
Puri
Sam
balp
ur
Sund
arga
rh
Tota
l :
Gen
. File
Tria
l File
Tota
lG
en. F
ileTr
ial F
ileTo
tal
Gen
. File
Tria
l File
Tota
l
TOTA
L N
O. O
F C
IVIL
AN
D C
RIM
INA
L C
ASE
S D
UR
ING
TH
E PE
RIO
D F
RO
M 1
.4.2
010
TO
30.
6.20
10
Ope
ning
Bal
ance
Inst
itutio
nD
ispo
sed
ofPe
nden
cy
CIV
IL19
9112
1234
782
7520
3184
CR
IMIN
AL
8885
5159
362
5345
489
4459
3141
1694
5722
4279
4606
2202
1232
7899
3189
1099
643
2237
8505
3757
5020
5
275
121
1844
2226
2083 10 155
883
273
03 301
300
4792
262
1352
8
2034
1206
4303
1449
2175
1379
304
4986
3273
1014
802
1687
4389
2255
3125
6
2309
1327
6147
3675
4258
1389
459
5869
3546
1017
1103
1987
9181
2517
4478
4
4242
3
1370
5
1299
77
5214
7
3779
2
2689
2
1467
2
1049
3
5076
1
1819
7
1125
3
2386
9
6250
9
6214
3
5568
33
2286
5
7986
4636
8
1217
9
1830
9
9208
6844
1078
02
2058
2
1024
9
5264
1418
9
1625
4
1192
2
3100
01
6528
8
2169
1
1763
45
6432
6
5610
1
3610
0
2151
6
1182
95
7132
3
2844
6
1651
7
3805
8
7876
3
7406
5
8668
34
2317
9
1350
0
1301
53
5153
2
3716
3
2588
2
1396
6
1022
2
5054
3
1786
1
1182
1
2375
8
6343
1
6060
6
5336
17
4127
7
7824
4661
7
1219
0
1859
0
9405
6777
1060
43
2113
7
1050
3
5156
1405
0
1600
8
1221
9
3277
96
6445
6
2132
4
1767
70
6372
2
5575
3
3528
7
2074
3
1162
65
7168
0
2836
4
1697
7
3780
8
7943
9
7282
5
8614
13
CourtNews
10
OUTLINES OF SOME RECENT ORISSA HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS
M/S. SPONGE UDYOG PVT. LTD. -V- THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, ROURKELA.W.P.(C) NO.6567 OF 2010 (Dt.08.04.2010)
ORISSA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2004 – SEC.30.
Suspension of Registration Certificate – Opportunity to show cause not given prior to issue ofthe said order – No provision in the Act or Rules for service of notice to show cause.
When a valuable right is sought to be taken away an opportunity of hearing though not specificallyprovided in the Act, is desirable to be given – Moreover suspension/cancellation of Registration Certificateof a dealer is an administrative action involving civil consequences so doctrine of natural justice mustbe held to be applicable unless the statute conferring the power excludes its application by expresslanguage – Held, suspension of Registration Certificate is liable to be quashed.
(L.Mohapatra, J & B.P.Ray, J.)
DR.N.ANANTA RAVI SHANKAR -V- SNIIGDHA DAS.MATA NO. 40 OF 2006. (Dt.9.4.2010).
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 – SEC.13(1) (ia).
Cruelty – Allegations made by the appellant are not of such nature that it can be termed eitheras mental or physical cruelty – An isolated incident of assault will not amount to physical cruelty andsuch conduct of the respondent depends on the circumstances under which one reacts.
Held, allegations made by the appellant with regard to mental and physical cruelty are notabnormal or unusual in married life and therefore, shall not amount to cruelty for the purpose of divorce– No justifiable reason to differ with the findings of the learned Judge, Family Court.
(L.Mohapatra, J & B.K.Patel, J.)
SAROJ KUMAR MOHAPATRA -V- STATE OF ORISSA.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.645 OF 2004.(Dt.9.4.2010)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 – SEC.239.
Petitioner was charge-sheeted U/s.13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988 for possessing disproportionateassets – He filed petition U/s.239 Cr.P.C. for discharge on the ground that the I.O. did not take noteof some documents explaining his source of income - Application rejected – Hence this revision.
Held, while taking cognizance, the Court is only to consider the materials produced before it bythe investigating agency and not to interfere on hypothesis, imagination and other reasons which amountto interdicting trial –This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
(A.S.Naidu, J.)
CourtNews 11
PURUSOTTAM DAS SHARMA –V- MANOJ KUMAR PATTNAIK, INSPECTOR,CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX & ANR.
CRLMC NO.937 OF 2010 (Dt.9.4.2010).
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 – SEC.482, 438.
Grant of Anticipatory bail – High Court directed arresting officer to release the petitioner on bailand impose conditions – Petitioner was asked to furnish bail bond of Rs.50,000/- along with suretyof Rs.50,000/- and to appear before the Superintendent, Central Excise on all working days for threeweeks and not to leave office between 10.30 to 6 P.M. without permission – Petitioner seeks quashingof the conditions.
Fixing the amount of surety depends on the individual financial circumstances of an accusedand the probability of his absconding – However the sureties should not be excessive – In this casesince the company had remitted the requisite amount it may not cause mental or physical strain on thepetitioner. So far other conditions are concerned the arresting officer has confined the movement of thepetitioner which tantamounts to passing an order of detention in the guise of terms and conditions ofbail – Held, such conditions are set aside and the petitioner shall appear before the authorities as andwhen summons are issued to him.
(I.Mahanty, J.)
SARANGADHAR MOHANTY -V- STATE OF ORISSA.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.277 OF 2007. (Dt.9.4.2010).
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 – SEC.350.
Punishment for non-attendance by a witness in obedience to summons – Appellant did notappear for recording of his evidence on different dates – Subsequently he appeared and his evidence wasrecorded – However learned Court below issued notice to him to show cause for his non-appearance incourse of the Court hour i.e. within 4 P.M. – He filed show cause stating that he has not intentionallyavoided to appear in the Court and he may be excused – He was convicted and was imposedpunishment – Hence this appeal.
Held, Section 350 provides summary trial for the above offence, so the time afforded to theappellant to submit his reply to the show cause notice is absolutely unreasonable – Impugned orderconvicting the appellant is set aside.
(B.P.Ray, J.)
M/S. MAHABIR TRADERS & ORS. -V- STATE OF ORISSA.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.50 OF 1993.(Dt.9.4.2010).
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 – SEC. 7
Submission of return by the appellant in the end of the month instead of fortnight interval –Nothing on record to show that such non-submission of return was deliberate and willful violation of theControl Order – In a case of this nature Court is required to look into the mens rea regarding the violationalleged – Held, no guilty mind can be attributed to the appellants for non filing of the return as stipulatedin Clause 13 of the Control Order – Conviction and order of sentence is set aside.
(B.P.Ray, J.)
CourtNews
12
RAMAKANTA SHARMA -V- UNION OF INDIA & ORS.O.J.C. NO.997 OF 2000.(Dt.16.4.2010).
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.227.
Finding of fact in the departmental proceeding – Conclusions arrived at are contrary to theevidence and shocking to commonsense – This Court can interfere by exercising its power under Article227 of the Constitution of India.
(A.S.Naidu, J & B.N.Mahapatra, J.)
ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. –V- B.RAJA RAM PATRA.W.P.(C) NO.11213 OF 2009. (Dt.16.4.2010).
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 – SEC.21.
Jurisdiction of a Court – Whether a mixed question of facts and law – Held, the issue relatingjurisdiction of a Court is to be decided on point of law only.
(R.N.Biswal, J.)
GANESWAR PATRA -V- STATE OF ORISSA.JAIL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.149 OF 1999 (Dt.20.04.2010).
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 – SE.3.
Appreciation of evidence – P.W.4 is the mother of the deceased, an immediate post-occurrencewitness – P.W.5 a neighbour of P.W.4 – No material to disbelieve their evidence – Contradictions/discrepancies appearing in their evidence are minor in nature – Such contradictions/discrepancies arebound to occur due to efflux of time and in case of rustic and illiterate witnesses like P.Ws.4 & 5.
Held, the oral testimonies of P.Ws.4 & 5 coupled with the medical evidence unequivocally pointsat the guilt of the appellant.
(Pradip Mohanty, J & B.K.Nayak, J.)
ACHYUTA CHARAN PANDA -V- M.D.,PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LTD.W.P.(C) NO.4819 OF 2008. (Dt.21.4.2010).
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 – SEC.33-A.
Section 33-A of the Act provides for adjudication of dispute relating to change in conditions ofservice during the pendency of proceedings in violation of provisions U/s.33 of the Act.
Held, change of retirement age does not amount to a change in the service conditions within themeaning of the Act – Moreover change of management does not in law amount to change in employment– So complaint filed by the petitioner U/s.33-A of the Act is not maintainable – No justification to interferewith the impugned order.
(B.K.Patel, J.)
M/S. FERRO ALLOYS CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.-V- STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.O.J.C. NO.4023 OF 2001. (Dt.22.04.2010)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.226.
Execution of lease deed for construction of office & guest house – Work to be completed withinthree years – No construction in the meantime excepting the boundary wall and out house - No steps
CourtNews 13
for resumption during 13 years after execution of the lease deed – Construction of office building andguest house started prior to passing of the order of resumption – Now the entire building has beencompleted and has been made to use and it would cause great prejudice to the petitioners if the orderof resumption is allowed to stand – Held, impugned order directing resumption of land is set aside.
(L.Mohapatra, J & B.P.Ray, J.)
ASRAF ALI KHAN & ORS. –V- MASTAN DARGHA & ORS.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.18 OF 2007. (Dt.26.4.2010).
WAKF ACT, 1995 – SEC.51, 107.
Wakf property – Managed by Wakf Board through Mutawalli – Mutawalli sold the propertywithout valid permission – Plaintiff filed suit to declare the sale deed null & void and for recovery ofpossession – Tribunal decreed the suit – Order challenged in this revision mainly on the ground that thesuit was barred by limitation.
In 1995 the Wakf Act came into force which prescribes that there shall be no limitation forrecovery of the wakf property – Moreover the law of limitation is a procedural law and the provisionsexisting on the date of suit apply to it – Held, suit filed by the plaintiff is not barred by limitation -Findings recorded by the Tribunal are confirmed.
(S.K.Mishra, J.)
DEEPANJALI PRADHAN & ANR.-V- THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS & ANR.W.P.(C) NO.16177 OF 2008. (Dt.27.4.2010).
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.226.
Examination – Petitioners appeared in Annual +2 Arts examination – Result withheld – Awardof “O” marks in two papers – In this case there was no allegation of malpractice, farless, massmalpractice either from any invigilator or Centre Superintendent or by the Flying Squad – Held, decisionof the C.H.S.E. for cancelling the result of the petitioners can not be sustained – Direction issued toC.H.S.E to get the above papers evaluated and declare the result of the petitioners.
(M.M.Das, J.)
M/S. SUBASH CHANDRA KANCHAN & ANR.-V- BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ANR.ARBP NO.25 OF 2009. (Dt.30.4.2010).
ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 – SEC.11(6).
Appointment of Arbitrator – Construction work – Payment not made as per agreement – Directionissued for appointment of arbitrator and completion of the proceeding – Proceeding not completed in timeand the arbitrator resigned – Delay in completion of proceeding is not deliberate but for the administrativereasons – Held, the present petition filed by the petitioner can not be maintained as the arbitrator isalready appointed by the Opp.Parties in conformity with Clause 25 of the agreement to resolve thedispute between the Parties.
(V.Gopala Gowda, C.J.)
SWAPAN GHOSH & ORS.-V- CUTTACK DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.W.P.(C) NO.1742 OF 2010.(Dt.30.4.2010).
ORISSA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1982 – SEC. 15
Telephone tower constructed on the roof of the house of Opp.party No.7 – Adjoining owners feeldanger to their life, health and property – They prayed removal of such construction.
CourtNews
14
Admittedly no permission obtained from C.D.A. for construction of the telephone tower but theAuthority has already initiated U.C.Case No.2 of 2010 and issued notice to O.P.7 to show cause as towhy unauthorised construction shall not be demolished – Direction issued to O.P.1 & 2 to take appropriateaction and dispose of U.C.Case No.2 of 2010 within a period of four months.
(B.P.Das,J & B.K.Nayak, J.)
LOCHAN MAJHI -V- STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.W.P.(C) NO.10649 OF 2009. (Dt.30.4.2010).
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.342.
Petitioner secured employment on the basis of false and fraudulent Caste Certificate deprivinga genuine and deserving Schedule Tribe Candidate for whom the post was reserved. His Service wasterminated on the direction of the State Level Security Committee - Hence the Writ Petition.
Petitioner was noticed and opportunity of hearing was given to him by the Scrutiny Committee- Alternative submission made by the petitioner that he has put more than 25 years of service and assuch his service be protected was turned down by this Court - Held, the writ petition deserves to bedismissed.
(B.P.Das, J & B.K.Nayak, J.)
BIJAYALAXMI PANDA -V- STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.CRL.REV. NO.854 OF 2008.(Dt.30.4.2010)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 – SEC.397, 401.
Revision against an order of acquittal at the behest of the informant – No doubt the scope forinterference is very limited – However in the present case sufficient evidence is there to show thatOpp.party No.2 has committed the offence but the trial Court without considering the prosecutionevidence has rendered the order of acquittal.
Held, order of acquittal passed by the learned S.D.J.M. is not sustainable and the same is liableto be set aside.
(Pradip Mohanty, J.)
TARACHAND MAJHI -V- LALIT PADHAN.W.A. NO.212 OF 2009. (Dt.3.5.2010).
Letters Patent – Clause 10 – Read with Orissa High Court Rules-1948 – Chapter-VIII – Rule2 – Appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge – Maintainability – Held, appeal maintainableagainst the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge – Election of Sarpanch – Election Tribunalgranted relief of recounting of votes – Order challenged in writ petition before the learned Single Judge– Writ dismissed – Hence the writ appeal – Order of the Election Tribunal is perfectly legal and validand is based on pleadings, evidence on record and legal principles – Held, Order of the learned SingleJudge does not call for interference.
(V.Gopala Gowda, C.J. & B.P.Das, J.)
CourtNews 15
UNION OF INDIA-V- HADIBANDHU BEHERA.W.P.(C) NO.10381 OF 2006. (Dt.04.05.2010)
CCS (PENSION) RULES 1972 – RULE 9.
Departmental proceeding initiated against the Opp.Party after his retirement – Alleged misconductdoes not attract the rigor of Rule 9 of the Pension Rules – Punishment imposed by the DisciplinaryAuthority on the intervention of 3rd Party – Held, punishment imposed so also the proceeding initiatedare unsustainable.
(L.Mohapatra, J & B.P.Ray, J.)
GOPAL CHOUDHURY -V- STATE OF ORISSA.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.57 OF 2001. (Dt.04.05.2010)
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 – SEC.302.
Conviction U/s. 302 I.P.C. – No eye witness – Only circumstantial evidence – Deceased founddead and was hanging in the house of the accused – Doctor says cause of death was asphyxia due tothrottling – Deceased was left in the company of the accused in his house and on the next day shewas found to have died a homicidal death – Time of death as mentioned in the Postmortem reportcorelates to the time when the deceased was left in the company of the accused – Onus shifts to theaccused to explain under what circumstances the deceased died – No explanation by the accused –A complete chain is established in the absence of any contrary evidence – held, it was the accusedand none else who was the author of the death of the deceased.
(L.Mohapatra, J & B.P.Ray, J.)
STATE OF ORISSA -V- KUNDA @ BHATUA LAKRA.CRIMINAL REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2002 (Dt.5.5.2010).
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973– SEC.318.
Accused is deaf and dumb – Conviction U/s.302 I.P.C. – Learned Sessions Judge made areference U/s. 318 to this Court for imposition of sentence.
Before making a reference U/s.318 Cr.P.C. it is obligatory on the part of the trial Court to makenecessary enquiries and endeavour to find out if the accused was made to understand the proceedings– However in case of conviction the High Court has to satisfy itself whether a fair trial was conductedagainst him or not.
In this case the accused was properly defended in the trial Court by a State Defence Counsel– While recording his statement U/s.313 Cr.P.C. a Specialist Teacher from Deaf and Dumb School wasengaged as an interpreter – Held, the trial was conducted fairly by following the due procedure andsufficient opportunity was also afforded to the accused to defend his case.
(Pradip Mohanty, J & B.K.Nayak, J.)
PRASANT KUMAR BISOI –V- TRIPATI BISOI & ORS.W.P.(C) NO.5283 OF 2008 (Dt.05.05.2010).
ORISSA PANCHAYAT SAMIT ACT, 1959 – SEC.45(1)(h).
Petitioner elected as Panchayat Samiti Member – His election challenged as he had committedmurder of his father – He was convicted U/s.302 I.P.C. which was altered in appeal to one under Section
CourtNews
16
304-II I.P.C. and sentence was reduced to 5 years – Plea that by the time he filed nomination he hadalready under gone the sentence of five years not accepted since the offence involves moral turpitude- Held, learned Courts below rightly declared the return candidate as disqualified for becoming a memberof Panchayat Samiti.
(R.N.Biswal, J.)
DUSMANTA KU. SAHOO & ORS.-V- RAJ KISHORE SAHOO & ORS.W.P.(C) NO.16717 OF 2007. (Dt.5.5.2010).
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART. 227
Suit for permanent/mandatory injunction – Petitioners filed application Under Order 39 Rule 1 &2 to restrain Opp.Parties from making any construction over the suit land – Trial Court directed tomaintain status quo – Plaintiffs filed petition Under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. for necessary variation in theorder of status quo for taking water connection through the disputed land – Trial Court rejected theapplication which was confirmed by the appellate Court – Hence this writ petition.
After going through the report of the Advocate Commissioner and since drinking water is a barenecessity for sustenance of life, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction Under Article 227 of the Constitutionset aside the impugned order and allowed the petitioners to take water connection to their house butthey will not claim any equity for the same if they fail in the suit.
(Sanju Panda, J.)
MITRA SANKAR NANDA -V- STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.252 OF 2002 (Dt.5.5.2010).
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 – SEC.300 (1).
Persons once convicted or acquitted can not be tried for the same offence subject to exceptionsunder Sub-sections (2) to (6) of Section 300 Cr.P.C.
G.R.Case No.383/93 for offences U/ss.160, 341, 323, 324 and 294 I.P.C. and G.R.CaseNo.384/93 for offences U/ss.341, 323 & 506 (II) I.P.C. instituted against the petitioner – Acquittal inG.R.Case No.383/93 – Conviction in G.R. No.384/93 by the Court below is under challenge.
P.W.(3) the informant categorically admitted that G.R.Case No.383/93 was registered for the selfsame occurrence – Final report submitted by police U/s.173 Cr.P.C. shows both the cases arose outof the same occurrence – Nature of allegations are such that in G.R.Case No.383/93 charge U/s.506(II)I.P.C. could have been made against the petitioner – Held, trial of G.R.Case No.384/93 was barred U/s.300(1) Cr.P.C. – Impugned judgments are set aside.
(B.K.Patel, J.)
M/S. INDIAN METALS & FERRO ALLOYS LTD. & ANR. –V- STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.W.P.(C) NO. 5413 / 2005 (with batch of cases) (Dt.6.5.2010).
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.226.
Vires of Sec.2,3,& 5 of Orissa Electricity Duty Act, 1961 challenged – So also the Notificationincreasing Electricity Duty – Plea that the action of the authority is beyond the scope of Entry 53, list
CourtNews 17
II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India – Further plea that the petitioners not being consumersthey are not liable to pay the same – Moreover petitioners generate electricity for their own consumption– No provision to show that non-laying the notification before the State Legislature would render thenotification invalid – Increase of duty from 0.12 paise to 0.20 paise after long gap of 9 years is notunreasonable – The classification was not discriminatory and violative of Article 14 – NALCO isnot liable to pay duty for the energy lost during the process of transmission – Held, the words“so however, that such modifications shall be without prejudice to the validity of any electricity duty leviedor collected under the notifications “ deserve to be strike out from Section 3(ii) of the Orissa ElectricityDuty Act, 1961.
(B.P.Das, J & R.N.Biswal, J.)
SMT. JYOTIPRABHA NAYAK -V- STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.O.J.C. NO.10725 OF 2001. (Dt.07.05.2010)
CIVIL PROCDUFE CODE, 1908 – ORDER 47, RULE.1.
Power of review – Governing Body terminated the service of O.P.6 – Appeal preferred by O.P.6before the Director Higher Education – Appeal dismissed – Order challenged in writ petition – Writdismissed – Review petition filed by O.P.6 before the Director – Director allowed the review petition –Order challenged in the present Writ petition.
Held, since the issue of termination of services of Opp.Party No.6 has attained its finality byorder of this Court in the previous Writ petition, the Director has become functus officio after the appealwas disposed of and he has no competence to entertain the review application and change the orderpassed by him earlier.
(A.S.Naidu, J & B.N.Mahapatra, J.)
SRI PRIYARANJAN JENA -V- UNION OF INDIA & ORS.W.P.(C) NO.9979 OF 2008. (Dt.07.05.2010)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.226.
Education – Petitioner appeared JEE-2008 for admission to MBBS Course under reservedcategory meant for children/widows of personnel of Armed/Para-Military Forces – Plea that writ petitionbecomes infructuous after the last date of admission is over was not accepted – Main allegation is wrongprioritization in service category – Priority IV was allotted to some candidates as they are wards ofEx-servicemen getting disability pension – Eight Candidates were allotted priority IV who were muchbelow the petitioner in the rank list of the JEE – Held, petitioner shall be given admission to MBBSCourse in any of the three Govt. Medical Colleges to his choice in the session 2010-2011 as a reservedCandidate in the seats reserved for children/widows of persons of Arms/Para-Military Forces.
(M.M.Das, J.)
GURU CHARAN PATTNAIK & ORS. –V- BIJAY KUMAR PATTNAIK.M.A. NO.245 OF 2000. (Dt.7.5.2010).
(A) MOTOR VENICELS ACT, 1988 - SEC.173.
Award fixing liability on the owner – Merely because the owner has not preferred any appeal,the claimants should not suffer, if they are otherwise entitled to get the compensation amount from theinsurer of the offending vehicle.
CourtNews
18
Held, the appellants are the “persons aggrieved” by the order of the Tribunal and the appeal attheir instance is maintainable.
(B) MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 – SEC.147 (1).
Gratuitous passenger – Tribunal fixed liability on the owner – Claimants preferred appeal to getthe compensation amount from the insurer as the offending vehicle possesses comprehensive policycovering the date of accident. Held, gratuitous passengers are covered under a comprehensive policy.
(B.N.Mahapatra, J.)
COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION,KALAHANDI -V- GOUTAM DHARUA & ORS.LAA NO.17 OF 2007. (Dt.11.05.2010)
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 – SEC.23.
Compensation – Determination of – For acquisition of similar nature of land having similaradvantage under the very same notification compensation assessed at the rate of Rs.64,000/- per acrehas already been accepted by the State Government and payment has already been made to theclaimants – So the compensation in the present case should also be fixed at Rs.64,000/-.
Held, compensation of Rs.80.000/- per acre as has been awarded by the learned trial Court isreduced to Rs.64.000/- per acre.
(B.K.Nayak, J.)
ARUN KUMAR NAHAK & ORS. –V- STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.WRIT APPEAL(CIVIL) NO.204 OF 2009. (Dt.14.05.2010).
Education – Advertisement for admission in to B.Ed. Course – Applications invited only fromuntrained graduate teachers – Appellants who are Hindi teachers, Classical teachers and PhysicalEducation teachers of different aided schools challenged the advertisement in writ petition – LearnedSingle Judge held the benefit of undergoing inservice B.Ed. training was aimed for untrained teachersholding Trained Graduate Post and it was unreasonable to grant permission to the appellants for suchtraining – Hence this appeal.
B.Ed. training is not necessary for the appellants – Held, no infirmity in the order of the learnedSingle Judge – However since the appellants have taken admission in B.Ed. Course as in-servicecandidates by virtue of the interim order and completed the course, extending the principles of equity,they should be permitted to appear in the examination.
(V.Gopala Gowda, C.J. & A.S.Naidu,J.)
SRI BHIMSEN GOCHHAYAT -V- THE REGIONAL MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA & ORS.O.J.C. NO.3143 OF 1997. (Dt.14.5.2010)
(A) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.226 r/w Order 6 Rule 1 C.P.C.
Pleading in writ petition – No pleadings that the punishment awarded against the petitioner isdisproportionate to the charges framed.
CourtNews 19
Held, if the facts raised are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexedto the writ petition, the Court will not entertain such point.
(B) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.311, 226.
Punishment of removal from service – Petitioner claims that the punishment is disproportionateto the charges framed – Petitioner, a bank employee was found to have tried to withdraw a sum ofRs.30,000/- dishonestly in collusion with some outsiders.
Petitioner is required to maintain higher standard of honesty and integrity and should do nothingunbecoming for a bank employee – Held, the charges proved against the petitioner is so grave that thepunishment of dismissal from service does not seem to be disproportionate and does not shock theconscience of the Court.
(A.S.Naidu, J & B.N.Mahapatra, J.)
SATYANARAYAN PATTNAIK -V- M.D.,ORISSA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS’CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. & ANR.
W.P.(C) NO.10291 OF 2006. (Dt.14.05.2010).
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.226.
Voluntary Retirement Scheme – Petitioner submitted his application on Dt.14.07.2006 – Hemade another application on Dt.17.07.2006 for withdrawal of his application – Opp.Party No.1 acceptedthe application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement on 27.07.2006 allowing him to retire w.e.f.31.7.2006 – Order challenged.
Action of the opposite parties in accepting the petitioner’s application for voluntary retirementignoring his application for withdrawal of the same being not in conformity with the provisions of thescheme is unsustainable – Held, the petitioner was deemed to have been in service all along during theperiod in question – He is entitled to get all arrear salary, other emoluments including increments andpecuniary benefits.
( A.S.Naidu, J & B.N.Mahapatra, J.)
SRI GANESH CHANDRA MRIG -V- THE SUPERINTENDENT (PREV.), COMMISSIONERATE OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX, BBSR-II.
W.P.(C) NO.3591 OF 2010 (Dt.18.05.2010).
CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944 – SEC.14.
Summons issued by Opp.Party to the petitioner -M.D. of the Company to appear in person togive evidence – Petitioner expressed that he is stationed at Delhi and is not looking after the day today affairs of the company due to old age and authorised other officers of the Company to appear anddepose – O.P. issued another summon for appearance of the petitioner – Hence the writ petition.
Held, Central Excise Authorities should not summon any person in exercise of power U/s.14 ofthe Act in a mechanical manner – Writ petition disposed of with certain directions and observations thatthe Opp.party after being satisfied that petitioner has acted in accordance with the directions issued bythis Court shall dispense with personal appearance of the Managing Director.
(A.S.Naidu, J & B.N.Mahapatra, J.)
CourtNews
20
KASINATH PANDA & ORS.-V- RAGHUNATH PANDA(DELETED) BASUDEB PANDA & ORS.SECOND APPEAL NO.132 OF 1982 (Dt.18.5.2010).
SHRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE ACT, 1955 – SEC.4(d-1).
Sebayati right – Whether it can be transferred and when the Civil Court can decide the disputesregarding sebayati rights.
Held, any transfer of Sebayati rights is opposed to public policy and that can not be acceptedby the Court – However transfer of sebayati rights through sanad issued by the Raja of Puri is notagainst such public policy – Civil Courts do not lack jurisdiction to decide any dispute regarding thesebayati rights.
(S.K.Mishra, J.)
SIDHESWAR KANUNGO -V- FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS.O.J.C. NO.11774 OF 1999. (Dt.18.05.2010).
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.311.
Adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Report, 1993 – Petitioner was informed on 11.10.96 –He made representation on 25.10.96 for expunction of such remarks – His representation was rejectedwithout disclosing any reason and he was denied promotion – New reasonings given subsequently inthe year 1999 is not legally sustainable – Representation of the petitioner explaining each and everyadverse remark entered in the ACR 1993 has not been dealt by the Opp.Parties – Held, Opp.Partiesare not justified to deny promotion to the petitioner in the selection Grade from the date his juniors werepromoted.
(A.S.Naidu, J & B.N.Mahapatra, J.)
SASMITA SAHOO -V- STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.2342 OF 2009.(Dt.18.5.2010).
(A) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.226.
Anganwadi Worker – As per the revised guidelines applicants should be a resident of the servicearea of the Anganwadi Centre – Guidelines challenged – Held, State has the authority to imposecondition of nativity with regard to Anganwadi workers.
(B) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.226.
Anganwadi Workder – Appointment of – Petitioner’s name reflected in the short list – Finally herCandidature was rejected as she does not reside in the service area of the Anganwadi Centre – Orderchallenged.
In this case petitioner’s house has been deliberately excluded from the service area by pick andchoose method – Held, order rejecting her Candidature was quashed so also the selection process –Direction issued to the Opp.Parties to start the process afresh from the stage of defining service areaof the aforesaid Anganwadi Centre.
(S.K.Mishra, J.)
THE ORISSA PRINTERS & BINDERS MAHASANGHA -V- STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.W.P.(C) NO.2862 OF 2010 (Dt.19.5.2010).
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.226 & 227, Micro, Small & Medium EnterprisesDevelopment Act, 2006 – Sec.11.
Resolution to invite National Tender for Printing of Nationalised Text Books – Petitioner a microenterpriser – Competition between two un equals in which poor binders/printers will suffer – Resolution
CourtNews 21
challenged – Industrial Policy Resolution 1980 for benefit of small entrepreneurs – Nothing to show thatthe incentive given in IPR 1980 have been withdrawn – Industrial Incentive Policy was issued by the Govt.and was approved by the cabinet – Directive principles of State Policy – Government can not deny anybenefit, which is otherwise available to the SSI Units under the I.P.R. – Held, Resolution for NationalTender quashed – Direction issued to award printing and binding of Text Books work to SSI Units of theState.
(V.Gopala Gowda, CJ & B.P.Das, J.)
M/S. ORISSA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.-V- CONCILIATION OFFICER-CUM-ASST.LABOUR COMMISSIONER, BBSR & ANR.
W.P.(C) NOS.14248 & 14249 of 2008. (Dt.19.5.2010).
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 – SEC.33(2) (b).
Dismissal of workman without enquiry – Management failed to provide any material for dispensingwith the enquiry – Management filed application U/s.33(2)(b) of the Act seeking approval of its action– Application rejected – Hence this writ petition.
The workmen categorically denied receipt of payment or receipt of any offer of payment of theirsalary for one month simultaneously with the order of dismissal – held, there is no error in the impugnedorder refusing to grant approval to the petitioner-company’s petition U/s.33(2) (b) of the I.D.Act.
(L.Mohapatra,J & I. Mahanty, J.)
BABAJI SAHOO (DEAD) & AFTER HIM PURNAMASI SAHOO & ANR. –V– STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.O.J.C. NO.7621 OF 2001. (19.05.2010).
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.311.
Departmental proceeding and criminal case – When the nature of the charge is criminal innature, the disciplinary authority would be bound by the findings arrived at in the Criminal Case.
In the present case no evidence was recorded by the Inquiring Officer in course of disciplinaryproceeding so the Disciplinary Authority is bound by the report of the police on the F.I.R. lodged againstthe petitioner indicating the “Facts true, but no clue.” – Held, the Disciplinary Authority could not havearrived at any conclusion holding the petitioner guilty of any offence for loss justifying any order oftermination against him.
(L.Mohapatra, J & I. Mahanty, J.)
SRIDHAR PRADHAN -V- SECRETARY, CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA & ORS.O.J.C. NO.1348 OF 2000. (Dt.19.5.2010).
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART. 311
Report of the Enquiry Officer totally based on the audit objection provided by the Auditors –Reversion – Non recording of statements of witnesses by the Enquiry Officer either from the side of thedepartment or defence – Petitioner was acquitted by the Criminal Court in one case and discharged inanother case U/ss 409, 477-A I.P.C. – Recovery proceeding seeking recovery of money allegedlymisappropriated by the petitioner was dismissed – Report of the Inquiry Officer not based on anysubstantive evidence, without complying with the mandatory requirements of the Orissa Civil Services(CCA) Rules 1962.
CourtNews
22
Held, all the impugned orders quashed – Petitioner shall be entitled to get all his servicebenefits as well as salary from the date of suspension – Since the order of dismissal is held illegal heis deemed to be in continuous service from the date of his suspension and he is entitled to get allconsequential service benefits.
(L.Mohapatra, J & I.Mahanty, J.)
RANJEET KISHAN -V- SUMITRA KISHAN & ANR.RPFAM NO.33 OF 2008. (Dt.19.05.2010).
(A) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 – SEC.125 (3), 128.
Maintenance granted in favour of minor – Application for arrear maintenance filed beyond theperiod of one year – Trial Court taking aid of Section 6 of the Limitation Act held the applicationmaintainable and directed for payment – Order challenged.
This Court held, Section 6 & 8 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the present case –Impugned order directing payment of arrear maintenance within 15 days is quashed and the order ismodified to the extent that the petitioner shall pay maintenance as awarded for 12 months preceedingthe date of application filed u/s.128 Cr.P.C.
(B) LIMITATION ACT, 1963 – SEC.6,8.
Arrear maintenance claimed by minor beyond the period of one year – Trial Court allowed theapplication holding that Section 6 of the Limitation Act applies to this case – Order challenged – Held,Section 6 & 8 of the Limitation Act has no application to the present case – Impugned order directingpayment within 15 days is quashed.
(M.M. Das, J.)
ANIL KUMAR MOHAPATRA -V- STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.W.P.(C) NO.13097 OF 2009. (Dt.21.05.2010)
(A) ORISSA ZILLA PARISHAD ACT, 1991 - SEC.36 (2).
Even if an elected member of the Zilla Parishad has taken oath as member thereof has to takeoath again after being elected as President or Vice President.
In this case neither O.P.6 nor O.P.7 has taken oath as President and Vice-President of the ZillaParishad within 90 days from the date they assumed office – Held, O.P.6 & 7 ceased to hold office andconsequently both the seats are declared to be vacant.
(B) ORISSA ZILLA PARISHAD ACT, 1991 – SEC.9,36 (2)
O.Ps. 6 & 7 were elected as President & Vice-President of Balasore Zilla Parishad – They failedto take oath within 90 days from the date they assumed office – They ceased to hold office – Petitionerprays that he being Sl.No.1 in the panel he be declared elected as President – Held, fresh election isrequired to be held for the said posts and the petitioner can not be automatically declared as Presidentbeing number one in the panel prepared in terms of the said section.
(L.Mohapatra, J & S.K.Mishra, J.)
CourtNews 23
N.SATYANARAYAN RAO -V- STATE OF ORISSA.JAIL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.16 OF 2000.(Dt.21.5.2010).
(A) EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 – SEC.9.
Delay in conducting T.I. Parade – I.O. explained that due to engagement in law and order duty he couldnot arrange T.I. Parade earlier – No reason to disbelieve his evidence – Nothing has been shown aboutany illegal or improper manner of conducting T.I. Parade – Held, it can not be said that the T.I. Paradenot conducted properly.
(B) EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 – SEC.9.
T.I.Parade conducted two months after the arrest of the accused – Allegation that the witnessesmight have seen the accused before he was put to T.I. Parade and identification by P.Ws.3 & 4 hasno relevancy –Evidence of P.Ws.3 & 4 reveal that they have seen the accused stabbing with knife andwhen he escaped they also chased him but failed to catch hold of him – So P.Ws.3 & 4 apart fromseeing the accused at the time of occurrence had further opportunity of seeing him while they chasedhim –No suggestion put to them that they had seen the accused or the police had shown the accusedto them after the arrest of the accused and before conduct of T.I. Parade – No such suggestion wasalso given to the I.O.
Held, accused was properly identified by the witnesses.
(Pradip Mohanty, J & B.K.Nayak, J.)
MAHAMMED SAUD & ANR. –V- DR.(MAJ) SHAIKH MAHAFOOZ & ORS.WRIT APPEAL NO.107 OF 2009 (Dt.22.05.2010).
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - SEC.151.
F.A.O. disposed of – Misc. Case filed in the disposed of case – In Misc. Case order was passedto provide adequate protection to the receiver appointed to take possession of the property – hence thiswrit appeal.
After disposal of F.A.O. learned Single Judge has become functus officio and could not haveentertained any further Misc. Case for further orders – Held, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable– This Court has also made an observation that after disposal of a case no further Misc. Cases shouldbe entertained except for the purpose of correction or modification.
(V.Gopala Gowda, CJ & L.Mohapatra, J.)
DURGA CONDEV PVT. LTD. –V- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BHANJANAGAR & ORS.ARBP NO.19 OF 2007 (Dt.22.6.2010)
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 – SEC.11(4).
Appointment of Arbitrator – Petitioner was awarded contract work by O.P.1 – After execution ofwork final bill received by the petitioner – Due to frequent suspension of work petitioner incurred hugeexpenditure over and above the bid price agreed upon – O.P.1 was intimated for payment of the extracost – O.P.1 neither accepted the claim nor referred the same to the nominated adjudicator.
Failure on the part of the Opp.party in not persuading the nominated arbitrator or not appointinganother arbitrator or not appointing any arbitrator under Clause 36.1 of I.T.B. by the Chairman, Institutionof Engineers (India) Orissa State, gives rise cause of action for the petitioner to approach this Court for
CourtNews
24
appointment of an arbitrator and it can not be said that there is no live claim and the contention thatthe claim is barred by limitation must fail – Held, the prayer of the petitioner for appointment of arbitratormust succeed.
(V.Gopala Gowda, CJ.)
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. –V- CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL & ANR.O.J.C. NO. 6156 OF 2002 (with batch) (Dt.21.6.2010).
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.226 & 227.
Sambalpur-Talcher Rail Link Project – Large patches of land acquired – Policy framed to provideone job to one family of the land oustees - When cases of land oustees considered along with outsideCandidates they filed O.A. – CAT held the procedure adopted by Railways being contrary to the policy,can not be sustained – Hence the writ.
The selection process adopted by the Railways for filling up 511 vacancies of Group-D posts wasconfined to outsiders without giving any appointment to land oustees – Action reveals that the Railwaysdid not act in accordance with the provisions of the policy – Policy required that jobs on preferentialtreatment should be offered to one member of the family – The word “offered” has not at all beenconsidered by the Railways – Tribunal rightly held that the action of the Railways can not be sustained– Held, Order passed by the Tribunal needs no interference.
(V.Gopala Gowda, CJ & A.S.Naidu, J.)
ICHHAMANI SWAIN -V- UNION OF INDIA & ORS.W.P.(C) NOS.15658 & 16550 OF 2007. (Dt.22.06.2010)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.226.
Family Pension – Petitioner’s husband working as lineman in the department of Telecommunicationsince 1947 – Died in harness on 24.07.1957 – Petitioner applied for Family Pension – Pension grantedw.e.f. Dt.22.09.1977 – Petitioner filed O.A. claiming Family Pension w.e.f. Dt.24.07.1957 – O.A. dismissed– Hence the writ.
Supreme Court vide Judgement Dt.30.04.1985 held that the Family Pension Scheme 1964 wasextended w.e.f. Dt.22.09.1977 to the families of those Government Servants who were borne on pensionableestablishment and are presently not covered under the Scheme, namely, the families of those Governmentemployees who retired/died before 31.12.1963 – Held, the Opp.Parties have not committed any illegalityin granting family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. Dt.22.09.1977.
(L.Mohapatra, J & B.P.Ray, J.)
GANGA BAI @ BUCHWANI & ORS. -V- MURALIDHAR MANUJA & ORS.W.P.(C) NO.14361 OF 2007. (Dt.22.06.2010)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.226.
Writ petition filed challenging the order of the Chairperson Jharsuguda Municipality – Counteraffidavit not filed by the Municipal Council denying the assertions made by the petitioners – Held,contention of the petitioner is accepted that the impugned order was passed behind the back of thepetitioners and the petitioners were not given reasonable opportunity of hearing – Held, impugned orderquashed and the matter remitted back for fresh hearing after giving the parties reasonable opportunityof hearing.
(L.Mohapatra, J & B.P.Ray, J.)
CourtNews 25
SATYABADI ROUT –V- STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.W.P.(C) NO.3856 OF 2010. (Dt.23.06.2010).
ORISSA GRAM PANCHAYAT ACT, 1964 – SEC.25(1)(h).
Elected Sarpanch – Declared disqualified by the Collector – Allegation is petitioner was allottedexecution of “LI work (4th phase) of Apokhia drain” prior to his election but final payment made duringhis incumbency as Sarpanch – Order challenged.
As per Para-5.18.1. of the SGRY contractors are not permitted to be engaged for execution ofany work under the said scheme – No middle man or any other intermediate agency should beemployed for executing the work under the programme – Full benefit of the works to be paid shouldreach the workers and the cost of the work should not involve any commission charges payable to suchcontracts, middle man or inter- mediate agency – Petitioner also did not hold any office of profit underthe State or Central Govt. or any other local authority – Held, the petitioner was not interested in thework while acting as Sarpanch – Order passed by the Collector Cuttack under annexure-11 is quashed.
(R.N.Biswal, J.)
RANENDRA PRATAP SWAIN –V- RAMESH ROUT & RABINDRA NATH ROUT –V- RAMESH ROUT.ELECTION PETITION NOS.4 & 6 OF 2009 (Dt.23.06.2010)
REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951 – SEC.36 (5).
Rejection of nomination paper – Ground is non-submission of Original Form-A and Form-B dulysigned by ink by the authorised person – In such event Returning Officer to mention the same in thebottom of the check list and direct to file the original – No such endorsement in the check list –Admittedly nomination papers of all the Candidates were Xeroxed outside so chance of missing of theoriginal copy can not be ruled out – Notification in Form-3A by the Returning Officer shows the ElectionPetitioner Sri Swain is the nominee of BJD which shows he must have verified Form-A and Form-B –Objection raised only by the Returning Officer but not by any of the Candidates – Rejection madewithout giving opportunity of hearing and by that the Election Petitioner is prejudiced.
Held, Election Petitioner Sri Swain had filed Original Form-A & Form-B duly signed by ink bythe authorised person and the Returning Officer improperly rejected his nomination paper – The Electionof respondent No.1 is declared null and void and thereby a casual vacancy is created relating to 89 –Athagarh Assembly Constituency – Further direction issued to the appropriate Authority to conduct freshelection in respect of the said constituency.
(R.N.Biswal, J.)BATA KRUSHNA SAHOO -V- STATE OF ORISSA.
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.8 OF 2002.(Dt.23.06.2010)
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 – SEC.376.
Rape – No corroboration to the evidence of the victim (P.W.5) – No medical evidence to suggestrecent sexual intercourse – Chemical examination of P.W.5’s wearing apparels did not indicate thepresence of semen – P.W.3 the (father-in-law of P.W.5) deposed in Court that he found the petitionerlying over P.W.5 but that fact was not stated before the I.O. – The circumstance that the petitionercommitted rape on P.W.5 by gagging her mouth with one hand and lifting her saree with anotherappears to be improbable – P.W.5 admits that the napkin with which the petitioner had gagged hermouth was lying on the spot but the same was not seized by police.
CourtNews
26
Failure on the part of both the learned Courts below to take note of such improbabilities hasoccasioned in miscarriage of justice – Held,Petitioner’s conviction and sentence U/s.450 I.P.C. areconfirmed – His conviction U/s.376 is set aside – Instead he is convicted U/s.376 read with Section 511I.P.C..
(B.K.Patel, J.)
RUMI DWIBEDI -V- CHAIRMAN, ORISSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, CUTTACK, & ORS. W.P.(C) NO.9770 OF 2009. (Dt.24.6.2010)
ORISSA SUPERIOR JUDICIAL SERVICES & O.J.S. RULES, 2007 – RULE 18(1) (c) & 19(3) (ii).
Orissa Judicial Service – As per advertisement Candidates to produce Oriya pass Certificateequivalent to M.E. Standard, if not passed H.S.C. or equivalent examination having Oriya as one of thesubjects – Petitioner a student of I.C.S.E., produced a Certificate issued from her school that she hadOriya as a compulsory subject from Class-IV to Class-VIII – Her application was rejected – Hence thewrit petition.
Purpose of the Rule is to speak, read and write Oriya fluently and for that passing ofexamination in Oriya language equivalent to that of Middle School standard is necessary - Since thepetitioner had Oriya as a compulsory subject from Class-IV to VIII it can not be said that she was notcapable of speaking, reading and writing Oriya of the standard as required under the Rules.
Held, passing of I.C.S.E. having Oriya as a compulsory subject from Class IV to VIII can betreated as equivalent to Oriya pass Certificate of M.E. standard.
(V.Gopala Gowda, C.J. & L.Mohapatra, J.)
RAMESH CHANDRA SAMANTARAY –V- STATE OF ORISSA.W.P.(C) NO.14499 OF 2009. (Dt.24.6.2010)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.226 & 227.
Re-tender notification is permissible in law, in view of the right reserved by the tender invitingauthority in the tender call notice.
In this case petitioner submitted his tender pursuant to tender call notice – Since the financialbid offered by the petitioner was unbalanced he was called upon to submit the price analysis – He didnot submit his item wise price analysis as required by the Tender committee – His bid was cancelledand re-tender notification was issued – Order of cancellation of the bid was communicated to thepetitioner – Petitioner did not challenge the same and the said order became final and fresh tender callnotice was published – Held, the action of the Government can not be termed as arbitrary and unreasonablecalling upon interference of this Court.
(V.Gopala Gowda, CJ & A.S.Naidu, J.)
PADIA @ PRADEEP KUMAR SAHU & ANR. –V- REPUBLIC OF INDIA.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2 OF 2002 (Dt.24.06.2010)
PENAL CODE, 1860 – SEC.376 (2) (G).
Gang Rape – Rape is the worst form of violence on a woman, perhaps worse than killing her.
In this case the prosecutrix was abducted and ravished by the accused persons one after theother – Her statement was not only corroborated by P.W.9 & 17 but also by the medical reports and
CourtNews 27
evidence of doctors- She has also successfully identified the accused persons in the T.I. parade – Held,this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned SessionsJudge – Direction issued to the respondent to take effective steps for arresting the absconding accused,Biban and to proceed against him in accordance with law.
(A.S.Naidu, J & S.C.Parija,J.)
SUKANTI SAHOO –V- VICE CHANCELLOR, UTKAL UNIVERSITY & ORS.W.P.(C) NO. 10965 OF 2003 (Dt.24.6.2010)
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (ACT NO.1 OF 1872) – SEC.115.
Action of the Utkal University not according permission to the petitioner to appear in the B.EdExamination for the second time is challenged in this writ petition – According to University the petitionersurreptitiously managed to appear in the examination in the year 1992 by suppressing vital facts forwhich her results were not published and she was declared to have failed – Publication of such resultwill not confer upon her a right to appear in the examination for the second time as her appearance inthe examination on the very first instance was illegal.
Held, the principles of estoppel can not be extended to protect an illegality or an action notsanctioned by law – No infirmity in the decision taken by the University.
(A.S.Naidu, J.)
GANGA PRADHAN & ORS. –V- MADAN PRADHAN & ANR.SECOND APPEAL NO.84 OF 1996 (Dt.24.06.2010).
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 – ORDER 22, RULE 2.
Sole appellant died and the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Lower appellate Court- Appeal was allowed to proceed and judgment was pronounced in favour of a dead person – Once thesole appellant had died and the legal heirs were not substituted, the appeal stood automatically abatedand the judgment passed in favour of a dead person becomes a nullity in the eye of law.
Title Appeal No.2/12 of 89/87 stood abated in toto for non substitution of the legal representativesof Mohan Pradhan who died during the pendency of Title Appeal leaving behind his widow, three sonsand one daughter – Held, judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court being a nullity inthe eye of law can not be sustained – Second Appeal is allowed.
(A.S.Naidu, J.)
CourtNews
28MAJOR EVENTS
1. Inauguration of the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), JaleswarThe Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) at Jaleswar was inaugurated by Hon’ble Shri Justice V.Gopala Gowda,Chief Justice, Orissa High Court on 9.4.2010. Hon’be Dr. Justice Arijit Pasyat, former Judge, SupremeCourt of India & at present Chairman, Competition Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi & Hon’ble Shri JusticeB.N.Mahapatra, Judge, Orissa High Court also graced the said occasion.
2. Inauguration of the Court of Judge, Family Court at Puri.The Court of Judge, Family Court at Puri was inaugurated by Hon’ble Shri Justice V.Gopala Gowda,Chief Justice, Orissa High Court on 23.6.2010. Hon’ble Shri Justice A.S.Naidu, Judge, Orissa HighCourt also graced the said occasion.
3. Observance of Lawyers’ DayTo commemorate birth anniversary of late Utkal Gourav Madhusudan Das, 28th April of everyyear is being observed as “Lawyers’ Day”. This year also it was observed on 28.4.2010 in the Courtpremises. Hon’ble Chief Justice, Hon’ble Judges and Members of the Bar offered floral tributes to thestatue of Utkal Gourav Madhusudan Das as a mark of respect to the revered soul. All officers andstaff of the Court also attended the ceremony.
4. Inauguration of Century Celebration and Dutikrushna Law Library of Aska Bar AssociationCentury Celebration and Dutikrushna Law Library of Bar Association, Aska (Ganjam) was inauguratedby Hon’ble Shri Justice V. Gopala Gowda, Chief Justice, Orissa High Court on 17.4.2010. Hon’ble ShriJustice B.P.Das, Hon’ble Shri Justice A.S.Naidu and Hon’ble Shri Justice I.Mahanty, Judges of OrissaHigh Court also graced the said occasion.
5. Observance of “May Day”Observance of “May Day”, Legal Awareness Camp for unorganized workers was held at ChristianField (Madhukunj-Deer Park), Cuttack on 1.5.2010. Hon’ble Shri Justice V.Gopala Gowda, Chief Justice,Orissa High Court & Patron-in-Chief OSLSA, Hon’ble Shri Justice B.P.Das, Judge, Orissa High Court& Executive Chairman OSLSA, Hon’ble Judges of Orissa High Court, Shri Kishore Kumar Mohanty,Collector, Cuttack and Labour Commissioner, Orissa graced the occasion.
HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE1. The 26th High Court Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat for the month of April was held on
24.4.2010 in which Hon’ble Shri Justice B.P. Das, Hon’ble Shri Justice L. Mohapatra, Hon’ble ShriJustice S.C. Parija and Hon’ble Shri Justice B.K. Nayak presided over the Lok Adalat.
In the said Lok Adalat 127 cases was disposed of by way of compromise. The General InsuranceCompanies present in the Lok Adalat agreed to pay Rs. 1,22,33,000/- as the compensation to theclaimants in MAC Appeals.
2. The “World Environment Day” was observed on 5.6.2010 in the New Conference Hall of the Courtby the High Court Legal Services Committee in collaboration with the Orissa State Legal ServicesAuthority. Hon’ble Justice D.P. Mohapatra, Former Judge Supreme Court of India, Prof. M.C. Dash,Hon’ble Shri Justice L.Mohapatra, Shri J.P.Das, Registrar (Judicial)-cum-Secretary, H.C.L.S.C., ShriD.P. Choudhury, Director, Orissa Judicial Academy & Judicial Officers in the station and membersof the Bar were present in the function.
3. During the period under report 62 applicants have been provided with the benefit under schemeof Legal Aid and provided by the High Court Legal Services Committee to file or defend their casesin the High Court.
CourtNews 29
Hon’ble Chief Justice & Hon’ble Judges of Orissa High CourtHon’ble Chief Justice & Hon’ble Judges of Orissa High CourtHon’ble Chief Justice & Hon’ble Judges of Orissa High CourtHon’ble Chief Justice & Hon’ble Judges of Orissa High CourtHon’ble Chief Justice & Hon’ble Judges of Orissa High Court
participating Programmes/ Courses at the N.J.A., Bhopal and other placesparticipating Programmes/ Courses at the N.J.A., Bhopal and other placesparticipating Programmes/ Courses at the N.J.A., Bhopal and other placesparticipating Programmes/ Courses at the N.J.A., Bhopal and other placesparticipating Programmes/ Courses at the N.J.A., Bhopal and other places
Names of the Hon’ble Judges PeriodSl. No. Topics
1. Hon’ble Shri JusticeV.Gopala Gowda,Chief Justice
27.6.2010 Attended the “Regional Meeting” on thereport of 13th Finance Commission
organized by the Govt. of India,Ministry of Law & Justice at Kolkata
Attended Central Authority Meetingof NALSA in the Judges’ Lounge ofSupreme Court of India, New Delhi.
8.5.2010 Presided over a Session in the GoldenJubilee function of Bar Association of Indiaalongwith Hon’ble Prime Minister, Hon’ble
Chief Justice of India & Hon’ble UnionLaw Minister at Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi
2. Hon’ble Shri JusticeB.P.Das
4.5.2010
4. Hon’ble Kumari JusticeSanju Panda
8.5.2010 Attended the meeting of Hon’bleChairpersons of the ComplaintsCommittee at N.J.A., Bhopal.
25.4.2010 Attended the programme - Launching of‘Para Legal Training and Legal Aid
Activities’ and Consultation at RGNIYD,at Sriperumbudur, Tamilnadu.
3. Hon’ble Shri JusticeL.Mohapatra
27.6.2010 Attended the “Regional Meeting” on thereport of 13th Finance Commission
organized by the Govt. of India,Ministry of Law & Justice at Kolkata
5. Hon’ble Shri JusticeB.P.Ray
3.4.2010 Attended the Annual Calendar Meetingto develop NJA’s Annual Calendar for
the Academic Year, 2010-11at N.J.A., Bhopal.
6. Hon’ble Shri JusticeC.R.Dash
17.4.2010&
18.4.2010
Participated in the National Conferenceof High Court Justices of Indian Judiciary ;
The Next Decade. at N.J.A., Bhopal.
25.4.2010 Attended the programme - Launching of‘Para Legal Training and Legal Aid
Activities’ and Consultation at RGNIYD,at Sriperumbudur, Tamilnadu.
27.6.2010 Attended the “Regional Meeting” on thereport of 13th Finance Commission
organized by the Govt. of India,Ministry of Law & Justice at Kolkata
CourtNews
30
ORISSA STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY1. Lok Adalats
During the above period, State Level Lok Adalats were held at Jeypore(Koraput), Puriand Baripada(Mayurbhanj) on 17.4.2010, 8.5.2010 and 26.6.2010 respectively, in which 233number of MACT cases have been settled/disposed of on conciliation basis and a total sumof Rs.2,44,83,500/- has been awarded as Compensation. Besides, 4926 number of caseshave also obeen disposed of in those State Level Lok Adalats which includes-Civil-39, Criminal-1486, Revenue-3158, Bank-210 and BSNL-33 and total fine of Rs.3,12,934/- and Revenue ofRs.11,48,708/- have been realized.
Similarly, 264 no.of District and Taluk Level Lok Adalats and 342 no.of Legal Literacy/Awareness Camps have been organized in different dates in the State. In the above Districtand Taluk Level Lok Adalats, 29,634 no.of cases have been disposed of in total which includeCivil-219, Criminal-9632, Revenue-18,587, Matrimonial-9, Labour-339, Bank-546, BSNL-197and NREGA-105. Criminal Fine of Rs.25,41,753/-and Revenue of Rs.39,50,171/- have beenrealized in the aforesaid Lok Adalats.
(2) Mediation Activities
During the period under report, 99 no.of cases have been disposed of in the DistrictMediation Centres which include Civil-54, Compoundable Criminal cases- 04, Matrimonial-04-and BSNL case-37.
(3) Legal Aid Beneficiaries
The benefit of the Scheme of Legal Aid and assistance has been provided to 1263number of persons in total, which includes, SC-92, ST-73, OBC-42, Women-296, Incustody-602and other Weaker Sections of the Society-158.
4(a) Legal Literacy/Awareness Campaign
On 17.4.2010, a Legal Literacy/Awareness Camp was organized by the District LegalServices Authority, Ganjam in association with the District Administration at village Gangapur.The above Camp was inaugurated by Hon’ble Shri Justice V.Gopalagowda, Chief Justice,Orissa High Court & Patron-in-Chief of OSLSA, in presence of Hon’ble Shri Justice B.P.Das,Judge, Orissa High Court & Executive Chairman, OSLSA,and Hon’ble Sri Justice A.S.Naidu,and Hon’ble Sri Justice I.Mohanty, Judges, Orissa High Court.
Another Legal Awareness Camp for unorganized workers was organized by the OrissaState Legal Services Authority at Christian Field (Adjacent to Madhukunj-Deer Park), Cuttackon 1.5.2010 to mark the observance of May Day,2010. The said Camp was attended byLabour Commissioner, Orissa, Collector, Cuttack, local Judicial Officers and many otherdignitaries. There was a huge gathering of labour class people for whom the programme was
CourtNews 31
organized. The programme started with a welcome address given by the District & SessionsJudge, Cuttack successively followed by introductory address by the Labour Commissioner,Orissa and a general address by the Collector, Cuttack. Two repatriate child labourers alsospoke to the gathering by narrating the story of their success which they have achieved withthe effort of the State Government in Labour Department. Hon’ble the Chief Justice whograced the occasion as the Chief Guest was pleased to address the gathering highlighting theaim and objectives of the observance of the Day and the various legal entitlements of thelabour community. Hon’ble Executive Chairman of this Authority who was pleased to presideover the programme delivered the presidential address outlining, inter alia, the activities ofOrissa State Legal Services Authority and its field units in rendering legal services to themarginalized sections of the society including the labour community. In the said Camp,I.D.Cards/Beneficiary Cards were distributed to the Bidi Workers and Building and otherConstruction Workers. The Member Secretary of the State Authority proposed vote of thanks.
All the field units i.e. 30 District Legal Services Authorities and 72 Taluk Legal ServicesCommittees of the State have also observed the May Day by organizing Legal Literacy/Awareness Camps for the unorganized workers in their respective jurisdiction.
The Orissa State Legal Services Authority in association with Orissa High Court LegalServices Committee organized a meeting on 5.6.2010 in the New Conference Hall of OrissaHigh Court in observance of the “World Environment Day”. The meeting was presided overby Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Mohapatra, Judge, Orissa High Court and Chairman, High Court LegalServices Committee with Hon’ble Sri Justice D.P.Mohapatra, Former Judge, Supreme Courtof India as the Chief Guest and Prof.Madhab Ch.Dash, Member, Appellate Authority,Water(P.C.P.) Act & Former Vice-Chancellor, Sambalpur University as the Chief Speaker.Hon’ble Sri Justice P.K.Mohanty, Hon’ble Sri Justice I.Mohanty, Hon’ble Sri Justice B.K.Nayak,Judges of Orissa High Court and Hon’ble Sri Justice S.K.Mohanty, Hon’ble Sri JusticeA.K.Parichha, Former Judges of Orissa High Court and Hon’ble Sri Justice N.Prusty, FormerJudge & President, Orissa Administrative Tribunal also graced the occasion. The gatheringalso included Smt.Snigdha Panigrahi, Dr.Manjushree Patnaik, Social Activists and Membersof Orissa State Legal Services Authority, Judicial Officers, Bar Members, Social Workers etc.The meeting started with a welcome address given by Sri S.Pujahari, Member Secretary,Orissa State Legal Services Authority. Hon’ble Chief Guest enlightened the gathering about thestatutory provisions and directives & guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on protectionof Environment and control of pollution. The Chief Speaker with his usual eloquence deliberatedupon various aspects of the Environmental hazards, their prevention and remedies. Hon’bleChairperson in his presidential address summed together the deliveries made by the Hon’bleChief Guest and Chief Speaker and added his Lordhip’s own experience concerning theEnvironment and its pollution. At the end Sri J.P.Das, Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Orissaand Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee extended vote of thanks.
CourtNews
32
Course contents ofthe Training
Cadre ofOfficersparticipating
No. of Officersparticipated.
Sl.No.
Remarks
ACTIVITIES OF ORISSA JUDICIAL ACADEMY
During the period, following training programmes are organized in Orissa Judicial Academyimparting training on the topics as hereunder.
1. 02.04.2010 “Function of Executive Magis-trate in Commissionerate ofPolice”
Sr. PoliceOfficers
25 Sr. PoliceOfficers = 43
Durationof theProgramme
2. 10.04.2010 “R.T.I. Act” District Judes 25 D.J. = 23
3. 24.04.2010&
25.04.2010
“Environmental Law” All Cadresof Officers
25 A.D.J. = 8C.J.M. = 3
C.J.(S.D.) = 5S.D.J.M. = 5
C.J. = 3
4. 15.05.2010&
16.5.2010
“N.D.P.S. Act and S.C.& S.T. (P.A.) Act”
District Judges 25 D.J. = 22
5. 24.05.2010&
25.5.2010
“Workshop on Writingof Judgment”
Judges of theF.T.C.
23 A.D.J. = 21
6. 26.5.2010&
27.5.2010
“Domestic Violence Act” S.D.J.Ms. &Magistrates
S.D.J.M.= 11J.M.F.C. = 12
7. 1.6.2010&
2.6.2010
“G.R. & C.O., C.F. Act,Suit Valuation Act,
Stamp Act & C.P.C.”
Sheristadars &Bench Clerksof Subordinate
Courts
25 Sheristadar = 5Bench Clerk = 5
25
8. 4.6.2010&
5.6.2010
“Intellectual Property Rights” District Judges 25 D.J. = 22
9. 10.6.2010&
11.6.2010
“High Court Rules, C.F.Act,Suit Valuation Act, Stamp
Act & C.P.C.”
Superintendentsof Orissa High
Court
25 Supdt. = 23
10. 18.6.2010&
19.6.2010
“Law of Procedure withreference to C.P.C. and
Cr.P.C.”
Civil Judge(S.D. & J.D.)
25 S.D.J.M. = 9C.J. = 9
J.M.F.C. = 5
CourtNews
Legal Literacy / Awareness Camp at village Gangapur (Dist. Ganjam) on 17.4.2010.Guests on the dais - Hon’ble Shri Justice V. Gopala Gowda, Chief Justice, Hon’ble Shri Justice B.P. Das,
Hon’ble Shri Justice A.S. Naidu, Hon’ble Shri Justice I. Mahanty, Judges, Orissa High Court.
Hon’ble Shri Justice V. Gopala Gowda, Chief Justice, Orissa High Court & Patron in-Chief of OSLSAhanding over widow pension order to a beneficiary in the Legal Literacy / Awareness Camp held on
17.4.2010 at Village Gangapur (Ganjam). Also seen in the picture Hon’ble Shri Justice B.P. Das, Judge,Orissa High Court & Executive Chairman, OSLSA and Collector, Ganjam.
Inauguration of Century Celebration and Dutikrushna Law Library of Bar Association Aska, Ganjam byHon’ble Shri Justice V. Gopala Gowda, Chief Justice, Orissa High Court on 17.4.2010.
Hon’ble Shri Justice B.P. Das, Hon’ble Shri Justice A.S. Naidu and Hon’ble Shri Justice I. Mahanty,Judges of Orissa High Court also attended the function.
Observance of “May Day” on 1.5.2010.Guests on the dais – Hon’ble Shri Justice V.Gopala Gowda, Chief Justice, Hon’ble Shri Justice B.P. Das,
Judge, Orissa High Court, Shri Kishore Kumar Mohanty, Collector, Cuttack & Labour Commissioner, Orissa
Inauguration of the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) at Jaleswar by Hon’ble Shri Justice V. Gopala Gowda, Chief Justice, Orissa High Court on 9.4.2010 in presence of Hon’bleDr. Justice Arijit Pasayat, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India & at present Chairman, Competition Appellate
Tribunal, New Delhi & Hon’ble Shri Justice B.N. Mahapatra, Judge, Orissa High Court.
Inauguration of the Court of Judge, Family Court at Puri by Hon’ble Shri Justice V. Gopala Gowda, Chief Justice, Orissa High Court on 23.6.2010 in presence of
Hon’ble Shri Justice A.S. Naidu, Judge, Orissa Hight Court