The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 9959 of 2025 Subhransu Sekhar Debnath & Anr. ..... -versus- The State Level Scrutiny Committee, Cuttack & Ors. ..... Petitioners Mr. A. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. P. Acharya, AG along with Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM: ORDER 09.05.2025 Order No. 05 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
petitioner’s sister before this Court in W.P.(C) No.33003 of 2020. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 09.04.2024, the report so submitted by the Vigilance Committee was accepted by the Scrutiny Committee vide the impugned order dated 18.12.2024. 4.2. It is contended that after acceptance of the report so submitted by the Vigilance Cell while complying the order passed Page 2 of 6. by this Court in W.P.(C) No.33003 of 2020 vide order dated 18.12.2024, petitioner should have been issued with a show-cause by enclosing the report along with other documents enclosed to the said report as provided under Rule-7(6) of the Rules. Since the Committee without providing copy of the enquiry report along with all relevant documents enclosed to such report as provided under Rule-7(6) and by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file his reply, has straight away vide the impugned order, directed for issuance of the proclamation as provided under Rule7(14) of the Rules, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.3. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order passed by O.P. No.1 on 18.12.2024 in directing for issuance of the proclamation as provided under Rule 7(14) of the Rules, requires interference of this Court. 5. Even though learned Addl. Standing Counsel as well as Mr. A.K. Biswal, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.6, supported the impugned order and contended that the petitioner was earlier issued with the show cause along with the report and since such a report was filed under challenge before this Court in W.P.(C) No.33003 of 2020, petitioner never filed his reply to the show-cause. But since vide the impugned order dated 18.12.2024, the report has been accepted by the Committee, let the petitioner file his reply to the show-cause and participate in the proceeding. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the report submitted by the District Vigilance Cell on 04.12.2020 was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P.(C) No.33003 of 2020. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the said Writ Petition, report submitted by the Vigilance Cell on 04.12.2020 was accepted by the Committee vide the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 under Annexure-12. Page 3 of 6. 6.1. Since the report so submitted by the Vigilance Cell on 04.12.2020 was the subject matter of challenge before this Court and the same was only accepted vide order dated 18.12.2024, it is the view of this Court that petitioner should have been given an opportunity to file his reply to the said report and thereafter the committee will be free to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 6.2. In that view of the matter, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition, directs O.P. No.1 to issue a fresh show-cause to the petitioner along with report submitted by the Vigilance Cell along with all enclosures thereto on the appearance of the petitioner before the Committee on 21.03.2025 along with copy of this order. On being provided with the show-cause along with the report and other relevant documents, petitioner will be allowed 4 (four) weeks’ time to file his reply. On receipt of the reply, the Committee shall decide the issue and dispose of the matter finally, strictly in terms of the provisions contained under aforesaid 2023 Rules as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 6 (six) months, if there is no other legal impediment. Petitioner is also directed to co-operate for disposal of the matter.
Arguments
2. Pursuant to order dtd.08.05.2025, Mr. B. Parameswaran, R.D.C., Central Division, Cuttack appeared in Person and expressed his regret for inconvenience caused to the Court. 3. Heard Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners along with Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel and Mr. P. Acharya, learned Advocate General along with Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.12.03.2025 so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-6. Page 1 of 6. 5. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner was before this Court on an earlier occasion in W.P.(C) No. 4774 of 2025. This Court vide order dtd.07.03.2025 while disposing the matter, passed the following order:- “2. Heard Mr. S.K. Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. A.K. Biswal, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.6. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 18.12.2024 so passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee-O.P. No.1 under Annexure-12. 4. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without following the provisions contained under Odisha Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Rules, 2023 ( in short “Rules”) and without providing copy of the enquiry report so submitted by the District Vigilance Cell as provided under Rule-7(6) of the Rules, the Committee straight away has passed the impugned order to issue proclamation, inviting objection as provided under Rule-7(14) of the Rules. 4.1. It is contended that the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell on 04.12.2020 was the subject matter of challenge by the
Decision
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.” 6. It is contended that even though order dtd.07.03.2025 was duly produced before Opp. Party No. 1 prior to final disposal of the same, but Opp. Party No. 1 on the ground that such an order has been obtained by suppressing material fact, did not hear the matter as directed and disposed of the same vide the impugned order. Page 4 of 6. 6.1. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that on the face of the order passed by this Court on 07.03.2025, which was duly produced before Opp. Party No. 1 and which is not disputed, the matter could not have been disposed of without following the direction contained in order dtd.07.03.2025 vide the impugned order dtd.12.03.2025 under Annexure-6. 6.2. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 7. Even though a counter affidavit has been filed taking similar stand as has been taken in the impugned order, but learned Advocate General fairly contended that let the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remitted to Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision in the light of order dtd.07.03.2025, so passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4774 of 2025. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made by the learned Advocate General, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.12.03.2025 so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-6. While quashing the same, this Court for effectual adjudication of the lis, directs the Petitioner to appear before Opp. Party No. 1 on 4th June, 2025. On his appearance Opp. Party No. 1 shall take up the matter and dispose of the same in the light of order dtd.07.03.2025. Page 5 of 6. 9. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Personal appearance of the Officer concerned is dispensed with. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-May-2025 18:03:58 Page 6 of 6.