Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-May-2024 07:09:15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.19979 of 2023 W.P.(C) No.21206 of 2022 & W.P.(C) No.21427 of 2023 (In the matters of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) (In W.P.(C) No.19979 of 2023) Manas Kumar Kar …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party(s) Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Arrangement Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, Adv. For Opposite Party(s) : Mr. Ashok Parija, AG Mr. Ch. Satyajit Mishra, AGA (for O.Ps.1 & 2) Mr. Niranjan Panda, Adv. (for O.P.5) Mr. Sangram Das, Adv. (for O.Ps.6 & 9) (In W.P.(C) No.21206 of 2022) Santosh Bhoi and Ors. …. Petitioner(s) State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party(s) -versus- Page 1 of 23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-May-2024 07:09:15 Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Arrangement Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party(s) : : Mr. S.B. Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Ashok Parija, AG Mr. Ch. Satyajit Mishra, AGA (for O.Ps.1 to 5) Mr. Sangram Das, Adv. (for O.Ps.6 & 9) (In W.P.(C) No.21427 of 2023) Puspalata Parida and Anr. …. Petitioner(s) State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party(s) -versus- Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Arrangement Mode: For Petitioner(s) :
Legal Reasoning
(a) preliminary inquiry against any public servant by its Inquiry Wing or any agency to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter; or investigation by any agency or (b) authority empowered under any law to investigate, where there exists a prima facie case: Provided that any investigation under this clause shall be ordered only if in the opinion of the Lokayukta there is substantial material relating to the existence of a prima facie case or any earlier statutory investigation or enquiry regarding the same complaint reveals that a prima facie case exists: Provided further that before ordering an investigation under this clause, the Lokayukta shall call for the explanation of the public servant and views of the competent authority, so as to determine for whether there exists a prima investigation: facie case Provided also that a decision to order investigation under this clause shall be taken by a bench constituted by the Chairperson under section 16. (2) During the preliminary inquiry referred to in sub-section (1), the Inquiry Wing or any agency shall conduct a preliminary Page 13 of 23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-May-2024 07:09:15 inquiry and on the basis of material, information and documents collected, seek the comments on the allegations made in the complaint from the public servant and competent authority and after obtaining the comments of the concerned public servant and competent authority, submit, within sixty days from the date of receipt of the reference, a report to the Lokayukta. (3) A bench consisting of not less than three Members of the Lokayukta shall consider every report received under sub-section (2) from the Inquiry Wing or any agency and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the public servant, decide as to whether there exists a prima facie case, and make recommendations to proceed with one or more of the following actions, namely:- of the initiation (a) investigation by any agency (including any special investigation agency): departmental (b) proceedings or any other appropriate action against the concerned public servant by the competent authority, (c) closure of the proceedings against the public servant and take action to proceed against the complainant under section 46. (4) The promotion and other service benefits of a public servant mentioned in clauses (e) to (h) of sub-section (1) of section 14 shall not be affected until the public servant is put under suspension on recommendation of the Lokayukta under section 32 or charge sheet filed after completion of investigation under clause (a) of sub-section (3) or a charge memo is issued against the said public servant in a disciplinary proceeding initiated on the is Page 14 of 23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-May-2024 07:09:15 recommendation of the Lokayukta under clause (b) of sub-section (3). (1) (5) Every preliminary inquiry referred to in shall ordinarily be sub-section completed within a period of ninety days and for reasons to be recorded in writing, within a further period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the complaint. (6) In case the Lokayukta decides to proceed to investigate into the complaint, it shall, by order investigating agency in writing, direct any (including any special agency) to carry out the investigation as expeditiously as possible and complete the investigation within a period of six months from the date of its order. Provided that the Lokayukta, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, may extend the said period by a further period not exceeding six months at a time and for the maximum period of two years. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, any investigating agency (Including any special agency) shall, in respect of cases referred to it by the Lokayukta, submit the investigation report to the Lokayukta. (8) A bench consisting of not less than three Members of the Lokayukta shall consider every report received by it under sub-section (7) from any special investigating agency agency) and may, decide as to- (including any (a) filing of charge-sheet or closure report before the Special Court against the public servant; (b) initiating the departmental proceedings or any other appropriate action against the concerned public servant by the competent authority. Page 15 of 23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-May-2024 07:09:15 (9) The Lokayukta may, after taking a decision under sub-section (8) on the filing of the charge sheet, direct its Prosecution Wing to initiate prosecution in a Special Court in respect of cases investigated agency by (including any special agency). investigating any (10) The Lokayukta may, during the preliminary inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, pass appropriate orders for the safe custody of the documents relevant to the preliminary inquiry or, as the case may be, investigation, as it deems fit.
Arguments
Mr. Manas Ranjan Dhal, Adv. For Opposite Party(s) : Mr. Ashok Parija, AG Mr. Ch. Satyajit Mishra, AGA (for O.Ps.1 & 2) Mr. Sangram Das, Adv. (for O.Ps.3 & 4) Mr. Niranjan Panda, Adv. (for O.P.5) Page 2 of 23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-May-2024 07:09:15 CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-15.03.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -19.04.2024 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. Since common questions of law are involved in these Writ Petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. This Court considers it apposite to deal with W.P.(C) No.19979 of 2023 as the leading case for proper adjudication of all the connected matters. 2. The Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.19979 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No.21427 of 2023 have challenged order dated 18.5.2023 passed by the Lokayukta, Odisha in LY Case No.543/2021 and have further challenged the subsequent initiation of proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of the Vigilance Inquiry report dated 23.3.2022 of the Inspector, Vigilance, Cuttack Division, Cuttack which is dehors the spirit of Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the Lokayukta Act” for brevity). 3. The Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 21206 of 2022 challenge the order dated 29.4.2022 passed by the Lokayukta, Odisha in LY Case No. 540/2019 and have further challenged the subsequent initiation of proceedings emanating therefrom. 4. While the Complaint Petitions leading to the LY Cases differ, what is curiously similar between the aforementioned three Writ Page 3 of 23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-May-2024 07:09:15 Petitions is the question posed by them, i.e. whether Section 20 of the Lokayukta Act was followed, and if so, whether noncompliance with the procedure laid down therein will strike at the root of the proceedings. 5. Hence, the present Writ Petitions. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 6. The concise factual record of the cases, pertaining to the matters at hand, is presented succinctly as follows: (i) In W.P.(C) No.19979 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No. 21427 of 2023: a. A complaint petition was filed before the Lokayukta, Odisha which was registered as LY Case No.543 of 2021. b. Upon passing the order dated 8.9.2021 of the Lokayukta, the Director, Vigilance, Odisha, Cuttack took up the preliminary enquiry of the matter and subsequently handed over the inquiry to Smt. Annapurna Sahoo, Inspector of Vigilance for inquiry in respect of 36 nos. of projects regarding misappropriation of funds in respect of MGNRGS funds under Kushapangi G.P. of Banki -Dampada Block. c. In view of the above, the Bench of Lokayukta had issued notice by Registered Post with AD along with a copy of the complaint and a copy of the order to Page 4 of 23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-May-2024 07:09:15 the Competent Authority, i.e., the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department, Government of Odisha, asking him to submit his views on the same in line with the requirement prescribed in Section 20(3) of the Lokayukta Act. The competent authority did not respond and without his views, on 28.6.2022, the enquiry officer submitted her report before the I.G., Vigilance, Odisha, Cuttack which has been subsequently submitted before the Lokayukta. d. On accepting the inquiry report, the Lokayukta, Odisha on 12.10.2022 issued notice to the Petitioners for filing of explanation on the enquiry report. The Petitioners were thereafter called upon to participate in hearing. e. The Lokayukta recommended to the Director, Vigilance, Odisha vide order dated 18.5.2023 in LY Case No.543 of 2021 for registration of the case and investigation, and further directed the Director, Vigilance to submit the investigation report within six months. f. The present Petitioners are before this Court challenging the order dated 18.5.2023 inter alia on the ground that the procedure laid down in Section 20(2) of the Lokayukta Act having not been Page 5 of 23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-May-2024 07:09:15 followed, i.e. the Competent Authority not having given its views, no enquiry report ought to have been submitted and the same vitiates the proceedings emanating therefrom while the said action of the enquiry officer also suffers from being unfair, arbitrary and unreasonable. (ii) In W.P.(C) No. 21206 of 2022: a. A complaint petition was filed before the Lokayukta, Odisha which was registered as LY Case No.540 of 2019. b. Upon being directed by order dated 18.2.2020 of the Lokayukta, the Director, Vigilance, Odisha, Cuttack took up the preliminary enquiry of the matter and entrusted the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Dhenkanal to enquire into the matter which pertained to mismanagement in afforestation and plantation in Kandappa Range, Papsara and Kuajhari apart from allegations of misappropriation of funds and low survival rate of saplings in plantations. c. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Dhenkanal vide report dated 30.6.2020 has highlighted that the views of higher Forest Officials (who would be Competent Authority) is required for initiation of action. On the same day, after receiving Page 6 of 23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-May-2024 07:09:15 the report, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack forwarded the said report to the D.I.G. Police, Vigilance acknowledging that, among other things, the views of higher Forest Officials (who would be Competent Authority) have not been received by the Inquiring Officer due to shortage of time, nevertheless recommended initiation of criminal action against the present Petitioners. d. Without paying any heed to the aforementioned inaction, the D.I.G. Police, Vigilance forwarded the report and the comments appended thereto to the Lokayukta on the same day of 30.6.2020 stating that all the inactions can be looked into “during” the investigation of the criminal case. e. On accepting the inquiry report, the Lokayukta, Odisha on 10.9.2020 issued notice to the Petitioners for filing of their explanation on the enquiry report. The Petitioners were thereafter called upon to participate in the hearing. f. The views of the Competent Authority were received on 3.3.2021 by the Lokayukta vide order dated 4.3.2021 and the Lokayukta recommended LY Case No.540 of 2019 to the Director, Vigilance, Odisha for registration of case and investigation, and Page 7 of 23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-May-2024 07:09:15 further directed the Director, Vigilance to submit the investigation report within six months. g. The investigation report was submitted to the Lokayukta on 17.2.2022 and thereafter the Lokayukta directed the Director of Prosecution, Office of Lokayukta, Odisha vide order dated 29.4.2022, to file a chargesheet in the case against the present Petitioners. h. The present Petitioners are before this Court challenging the order dated 29.4.2022 inter alia on the ground that the procedure laid down in Section 20(2) of the Lokayukta Act having not been followed, i.e. the Competent Authority not having given its views, no enquiry report ought to have been submitted and the same vitiates the proceedings emanating therefrom. II. PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS: 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner(s) earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) On facts, it is submitted that the inquiry report has failed to establish any misappropriation of Government funds by the Petitioners. In fact, on the perusal of the material available on record and pendency of the case before the Lokayukta Odisha has caused serious prejudice to the Petitioners thereby affecting his service career. Further, Page 8 of 23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-May-2024 07:09:15 there is no suggestive /substantial material or chain of circumstances that would establish any nexus among the officials or any mutual criminal conspiracy between the elected body and the petitioner for causing any loss to state exchequer. (ii) On law, it is submitted that the inquiry report is defective for not being in compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 20 of the Lokayukta Act. The views of the Competent Authority not being received on considered by the Inquiry Officer at the time of drawing up of the Inquiry Report, is a violation of the statutory provisions and it is trite in law that when a statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner only and no way else. (iii) It was further contended that the Director, Vigilance being tasked by the Lokayukta with conducting the preliminary enquiry essentially acted as a judge in its own case which contravenes the basic legal principle of “nemo judex sua causa”. III. STATE’S SUBMISSIONS: 8. Per contra, learned AG appearing for the State intently made the following submissions: (i) In W.P.(C) No.19979 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No. 21427 of 2023 the Lokayukta had issued notice by Registered Post with Page 9 of 23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-May-2024 07:09:15 AD the Competent Authority, i.e., the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department, Government of Odisha, asking him to submit his views on the inquiry reports. However, no view was submitted despite several adjournments, requests and reminders. Therefore, intent of Section 20(2) was fulfilled. He also submitted that so far as W.P.(C) No. 21206 of 2022 is concerned then the views of the Competent Authority were received on 3.3.2021 by the Lokayukta and it is only thereafter vide order dated 4.3.2021, that the Lokayukta recommended LY Case No.540 of 2019 to the Director, Vigilance, Odisha for registration of case and investigation. (ii) It was also contended that Section 20(1) of Lokayukta Act requires that on receipt of a complaint, if the Lokayukta decides to proceed further, it may order for preliminary inquiry against any public servant by its Inquiry wing or by any agency to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter. The words "any agency" include the Director Vigilance, Odisha and therefore, the order directing the Director Vigilance, Odisha to conduct Preliminary Inquiry, cannot be taken exception of. It was acknowledged that, the Inquiry wing of the Lokayukta could have been directed to conduct preliminary Inquiry into the allegation of corruption but Page 10 of 23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-May-2024 07:09:15 reiterated that the discretion of the Lokayukta cannot be questioned. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 9. This Court shall first consider whether the Vigilance Department could have conducted the preliminary inquiry. Section 28 authorizes the Lokayukta to conduct any preliminary inquiry or investigation and utilize the services of any officer or organization or investigation agency of the Government. The said facts have been reinforced by the Apex Court in Lokayukta Odisha v. Dr Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi1 wherein it was held that: “30. At the same time/ under Section 28/ for the purpose of conducting any preliminary inquiry or investigation, it is open for the Lokayukta to utilize the services of any officer or organization or investigation agency of the Government and, in the circumstances, if the appellant in its judicious discretion and on the facts and circumstances of the case, conduct a preliminary inquiry through an agency of the Government of which reference has been made under Section 28 through the Directorate of Vigilance, Cuttack, there appears no legal infirmity being committed by the appellant in the decision making process in conducting a preliminary inquiry which, in our view, was within the scope and ambit of Section 20(1) of the Act/ 2014.” 12023 SCC Online SC 175 Page 11 of 23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-May-2024 07:09:15 10. Keeping the aforementioned settled position of law in mind, this Court is of the view that the Lokayukta can order to the Vigilance Department for conducting the preliminary inquiry. However, the Section 20(2) of the Act is mandatory in nature. Any preliminary inquiry ordered by the Lokayukta “shall” be in conformity of Section 20(2). The expression “and after” employed in the said provisions makes it abundantly clear that the inquiry report has to be submitted to the Lokayukta only after the comments of the concerned public servant and competent authority are received. In fact, the competent authority is likely to have better knowledge about the propensity, the nature and ramification of the loss caused to the department due to such corrupt practices. This comment shall guide the investigation in proper way. 11. Moving on, the Petitioner relies heavily on Section 20 of the Lokayukta Act, which lays down the procedure in respect of Preliminary Inquiry and investigation of the Lokayukta. Section 20 provides an inbuilt mechanism laying down the procedure to be followed in holding preliminary inquiry and investigation which the Lokayukta, in the facts and circumstances, on receipt of a complaint may decide - either order for conducting preliminary inquiry against the public servant by its inquiry wing or any agency to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter; or direct to hold an investigation by any agency or authority empowered under any Page 12 of 23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-May-2024 07:09:15 law to investigate, to record its satisfaction whether there exists a prima facie case. The relevant section is reproduced hereinbelow: “20.(1) The Lokayukta, on receipt of a complaint, if it decides to proceed further, may order-
Decision
(11) The website of the Lokayukta shall, from time to time and in such manner as may be specified by regulations, display to the public, the status of number of complaints pending before it or disposed of by it. (12) The Lokayukta may retain the original records and evidences. which are likely to be requined in the process of preliminary inquiry or investigation or conduct of a case by it or by the Special Court. (13) Save as otherwise provided, the manner and procedure of conducting a preliminary inquiry or investigation (including such material and documents to be made available to the public servant) under this Act shall be such as may be specified by regulations.” (emphasis is ours) 12. A perusal of the aforementioned Section makes it clear that Section 20(2) is mandatory in nature. Any preliminary inquiry ordered by the Lokayukta “shall” be in conformity of Section 20(2). The “and after” utilized in the said provisions makes it abundantly clear that the inquiry report has to be submitted to Page 16 of 23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-May-2024 07:09:15 the Lokayukta only after the comments of the concerned public servant and competent authority are received. The intention of the Legislature to make this a mandatory requirement is understandable as the views of the Competent Authority as contemplated under the Act is solicited to ascertain the stand of the authority about the affairs of the sub-ordinate officer i.e. the public servant. It may be clarified here that the view of the Competent Authority though mandatorily required prior to submission of the Report to the Lokayukta, does not bind the Lokayukta who shall then assess the materials, comments and documents independently to ascertain whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the alleged errant official. 13. Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the Ld. Senior Counsel for the State that as the comments of the Competent Authority were solicited in W.P.(C) No.19979 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No. 21427 of 2023/ but never received/ the ‘intent’ of Section 20(2) was fulfilled. Furthermore, in W.P.(C) No. 21206 of 2022, the comment of the Competent Authority though received, it did not form a part of the enquiry report that was forwarded to the Lokayukta. The comments of the concerned public servant and the Competent Authority being mandatory in nature, the enquiry report submitted without the latter cannot be said to be in accordance with the spirit of the statutory provisions. Page 17 of 23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-May-2024 07:09:15 14. There is yet an uncontroverted legal principle that when the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. In other words, where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way and not contrary to it at all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular way, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following any other course is not permissible. 15. The said proposition of law about limitation of exercise of statutory power has first been identified by Jassel M. R. in the case of Taylor v. Taylor2, wherein it was laid down that, where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, that thing must be done in that way, or not at all, and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. 16. In India, this well recognized principle was first seen in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor3. It is a settled position of law that if the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner, and if it is not done in that manner, then it would have no existence in the eye of the law. 2 [1876] 1 Ch.D. 426 3 1936 SCC OnLine PC 41 Page 18 of 23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-May-2024 07:09:15 Reference can be made in this regard to the Apex Court’s judgments in Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P.4, State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya5, State of Mysore v. V.K. Kangan6 and Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone7, wherein the Supreme Court while referring to certain statutory provisions, consistently held that the statutory provisions of the statutory enactment are mandatory and not directory and that they are required to be rigidly complied with. For ascertaining the real intention of the Legislature the Court may consider, inter alia, the nature and the design of the statute, and the consequences which would follow from construing it the one way or the other, the impact of other provisions whereby the necessity of complying with the provisions in question is avoided, the serious or trivial consequences that flow therefrom, and, above all, whether the object of the legislation will be defeated or furthered. 17. The Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad8, has succinctly held as follows: “17. … It is a well-settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner…”