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