Pitabasa Mahali v. Union of India & Ors.

Petitioner Ms. J. Jena, Adv. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. D. Gochhayat, CGC CORAM: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 08.01.2024 Order No. 01.

This matter is taken up by hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 791 of 2023 under Annexure-2, by which the tribunal has denied to issue direction to the authority with regard to supply of documents.

Ms. J. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that though the tribunal has been pleased to disposed of the original application directing the opposite party no.3 to consider the representation dated 18.11.2023 in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order to be communicated to the petitioner, but no direction has been given for supply of documents the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Dy. Solicitor General of India appearing along with Mr. D. Gochhayat, learned Central Government Counsel contended that there is no error on the face of the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, which is required to be interfered by this Court. So far as interim protection is concerned, when the petitioner claims for consideration of her representation and the tribunal directed for consideration of his representation, question of interim protection does not arise. In any case, if the petitioner wants some protection, then he could have approached the appellate authority instead of approaching this Court by filing the present writ petition. It is further contended that since the tribunal has already directed for consideration of the representation dated 18.11.2023 of the petitioner, the grievance of the petitioner with regard to supply of documents can be considered by the authority in accordance with law. Therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is absolutely misconceived one and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the petitioner had approached the tribunal by filing O.A. No. 791 of 2023 for supply of documents, which was disposed of by the tribunal, vide order dated 20.12.2023 directing the authority to consider representation dated 18.11.2023, of the petitioner, if pending, in accordance with the rules and pass a reasoned and speaking order to be communicated to the petitioner within a period of 15 days. Contention has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that no protection has been given to the petitioner by the tribunal. But question of protection at this stage does not arise, particularly when the matter is pending before the appellate authority. Therefore, if the petitioner seeks some protection, he should have approached the appellate authority for pursuing his remedy instead of approaching this Court.

In the above view of the matter, this Court does not find any error apparent on the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by this tribunal in O.A. No. 791 of 2023 so as to cause interference with the same.