HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7431 of 2011 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ---------Ritima Dehuri W/o Late Udayanath Dehuri At/PO- Kanknamendhi P.S. Banigocha, Daspala, Dist: Nayagarh …… Petitioner -VrsState of Orissa and others For Petitioner ..…. : For Opp. Parties : Opp. parties M/s M.M.Pattnaik, D.P.Mohapatra, A.K.Sahu & P.Das Government Advocate ----------- P R E S E N T: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. MAHAPATRA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of Judgment:
14. 03.2012 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B.N. MAHAPATRA, J.Petitioner, the mother of late Nalita Kumar Dehuri, who was arrested, detained and died in police custody, files this writ petition seeking for a direction to opposite parties to initiate a criminal proceeding against the erring police officers and for a further direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short, “CBI”.) to investigate into the matter. Further prayer of the petitioner is to grant a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs in her favour”
2. Petitioners’ case in nutshell is that her son was arrested, detained and due to brutal torture by the police he died in police custody. The petitioner was not at all informed by the opposite parties regarding the arrest and detention of her son. The ground of arrest was also not informed to the petitioner not her son was at all produced before any Magistrate. The petitioner came to knot from the media reports that her son was arrested on 09.02.2011 and was taken to police custody along with other two accused women by Ganjam Police. It was falsely alleged by opposite parties that the son of the petitioner was carrying pistol and some live ammunitions without licence for which P.S. Case No.14/11 was registered against the son of the petitioner in Chamakhandi Police Station. In the intervening night of 28th February and 1st March, 2011, Police patrolling was going on as a precaution to avoid law and order problem in the context of Panchayat by-election scheduled to be held on 03.03.2011. At the time of random checking, the police caught hold of the son of the petitioner, who had no valid document relating to the bike he was riding. Thereafter, he was arrested and kept in the hazat room of Chamakhandi Police Station. In the morning, one police officer offered breakfast to the petitioner’s son and soon thereafter at 8.30 A.M., the deceased was noticed being hanged with a blanket from the iron rod in the window of the Hazat room. He was admitted in MKCG Medical College Hospital, Berhampur at 9.45 A.M. and died in hospital at 11.10 A.M. Even though the dead body was sent for post mortem, after inquest was made over the dead body, no information was given to the petitioner in this regard. No step was taken to procure the presence of any near and 3 dear of the deceased at the time of inquest and post mortem. No document was also supplied to the petitioner in that regard.
3. The petitioner being a poor uneducated and rustic village lady tried her level best to trace out her son from 9th February with the help of some local people, but could not found her son. Later, learning from media and other sources the petitioner reached at MKCG Medical College & Hospital, Berhampur and identified the dead body as of her son. The dead body of the son of the petitioner was cremated at Golapalli cremation ground, Berhampur on 3.3.2011 at about 5.00 P.M.
4. Mr. M.M. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placing reliance on the decision in D.K. Basu Vrs. State of West-Bengal reported in AIR 199.SC 61.submitted that the rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution required to be jealously and scrupulously protected. The guidelines provided in the said decision should have been strictly followed, but the opposite parties did not do so in the present case. The police personnel neither prepared memo of arrest not informed any of the friends or relatives not any other persons known to the petitioner or having interest in the welfare of the petitioner’s son. The concerned police officials did not notify the time, place of arrest and venue of custody of the petitioner’s son. The petitioner was not at all supplied with any such document. The deceased was never produced before any Magistrate after his arrest. The opposite parties did not follow the statutory mandate provided under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The provision contained in Section 176(1-A) of Criminal Procedure Code prescribes that where any person dies or disappears 4 while in the custody of police or in any other custody authorized by the Magistrate or the Court, under the Cr. P.C. in addition to the enquiry or investigation held by the police, an enquiry shall be held by Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate. In the present case, no such inquiry was conducted by any such Judicial Magistrate. Police tried to hush up the evidence as inferred from the fact and circumstances and it is presumed that there is every chance of tampering of evidence and the credibility of the inquest report as well as the post mortem report in question. If any viscera would have been preserved for chemical examination at F.S.L., the same could have been examined by a specially constituted Medical Board by this Court for ascertaining the real cause of death of the deceased son of the petitioner. The Peoples Union for Civil Liberty (in short, “PUCL”.), which is a nationally reputed organization actively engaged in the field of civil liberty and human rights, visited the spot and interviewed the petitioner and different persons connected with the deceased son of the petitioner. They have also met with the police and other authorities. The PUCL published one interim fact finding report. PUCL questioned the practicality and feasibility of the suicide of the petitioner’s son. The shocking incident of custodial death was widely published both in print and electronic media and massive protest was made at different places by different groups of people. Opposite party no.5 and other officers who are held responsible for custodial death of the petitioner’s son are required to face criminal proceedings and should be punished in accordance with law. Initiation of criminal proceeding against the wrong doers should start as early as possible to prevent the 5 tampering of evidence of custodial violence. Investigation by the Orissa Police will not be effective and credible as inferred from the facts and circumstances. There is every apprehension of tampering of evidence by the opposite parties. Therefore, CBI being an Investigating Agency under the Union Government with highly equipped and expertise, there is every chance of better and credible investigation. The petitioner’s son was an able bodied young man and an earning person and was looking after the widowed mother and other family members. The death of the petitioner’s son has caused irreparable loss to the family. The death of the petitioner’s son is not a suicidal but homicidal one and opposite parties are liable for such homicidal death, for which a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs should be awarded to the petitioner.
5. Mr.R.K.Mohapatra, Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Opposite party-State submitted that in the intervening night of 28.02.2011/01.03.2011 at 2.00 A.M. while the A.S.I. Sibaram Das of Chamakhandi Police Station being accompanied by ¼ APR under charge of Havildar G. Behera were performing blocking at Kaliabali Chhak under Chamakandi P.S. detected one person, who was proceeding towards Chhatrapur by riding a Hero Honda Passion Plus Motor Cycle having no registration number plate. On checking, the A.S.I. recovered one pistol and five rounds of live ammunitions from his possession. On being asked, the said person gave his identity as Raju Nayak, aged 26 years, S/o- Late Srikanta Nayak of Dasapalla, At/P.O.- Rambha and further could not account for and explain regarding his possession of the pistol as well as ammunitions. Basing on the written report of informant 6 Sibaram Das, A.S.I. of Police, Chamakhandi P.S., the IIC, Chamakhandi P.S. registered Chamakhandi P.S. Case No.14 dated 1.3.2011 under Section 25(I-B) Arms Act and directed A.S.I. Raghab Sundar Gouda to investigate into the case. In the instant case, the said person who had given his identity as Raju Nayak was brought to P.S. and as prima facie evidence well proved against Raju Nayak U/s. 25(I-B) Arms Act, he was arrested in the same night, i.e., on 01.3.2011 at 2.40 A.M. after observing all formalities as required and detained at Chamakhandi P.S. hazat.
6. On 1.3.2011 at 8.00 AM, while being lodged at Chamakhandi P.S. hazat the said accused Raju Nayak went to attend the call of nature inside P.S. hazat, but as there was delay and no reasonable noise was heard as regards use of toilet , on suspicion Sri Raghaba Sundar Gouda, ASI of Police, Chamakhandi P.S. (the Diary charge Officer at the relevant time) checked the hazat and found the said detainee hanging using one portion of the prisoner’s blanket and by fastening the other end to the iron rods affixed to the ventilator existing on the western wall of the hazat. The blanket was found to be torn from one end which was used as rope to commit suicide by the said detainee Raju Nayak. Immediately the ASI on duty (DCO) Raghab Sundar Gouda and Sentry Constable B.N. Jally raised alert in the Police Station. The sentry Constable lifted the detainee by holding him up from his thigh portion and the ASI Raghab Sundar Gouda unfastened the blanket from the rod. Then the detainee was made to lie down on the floor and the IIC was informed through Havildar, G. Behera. The IIC arrived at Police Station immediately and sent the detainee to Hospital for treatment”
7. On the written report of Raghab Sundar Gouda, ASI of Police, Chamakhandi P.S. and D.C.O. at the relevant time, PS Case No.15 dated 01.03.2011 under Section 309, IPC was registered and the IIC investigated into it. While the said Raju Nayak was undergoing treatment at S.D. Hospital Chatrapur, on the same day at 11.10 A.M. the treating Doctor A.K. Sashani, Asst. Surgeon, S.D. Hospital, Chatrapur declared him dead and sent casualty memo to IIC, Chatrapur P.S. on this score. On receipt of casualty memo from the treating Doctor Sri A.K. Shasani, S.D. Hospital, Chatrapur, Sri Sarat Chandra Buruda, IIC, Chatrapur P.S. registered Chatrapur P.S. U.D. Case No.03 dated 1.03.2011 and started enquiry. During enquiry, the Magistrate-Cum-Sub-Collector, IIC has Chatrapur intimated to depute Sub-Divisional an Executive Magistrate to remain present at the time of inquest over the dead body of accused Raju Nayak at S.D. Hospital, Chatrapur. On receiving intimation from IIC, Chatrapur PS, Police Photographer of DFSL, Chatrapur was deputed to remain present at the time of inquest and post mortem over the dead body of the deceased-Raju Nayak and to make videography for record purpose. On the same day, on being directed by Superintendent of Police, Ganjam, Sri P.K. Jally, OPS, SDPO, Chatrapur took charge of enquiry of Chatrapur P.S. UD Case No.03 dated 01.3.2011 and investigation of Chamakhandi PS case No.15 dated 01.03.2011. The inquest over the dead body of the deceased Raju Nayak was held at S.D. Hospital, Chatrapur and the post mortem was held at MKCG Medical College & Hospital, Berhampur by a team of Doctors in presence of Sri Ajay Kumar Das, OAS-I (JB), Tahasdildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, 8 Chatrapur under videography by Naresh Nayak, ASI Photo, DFSL, Chatrapur.
8. The Medical Officers who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased opined that the cause of death is due to ante-mortem hanging and the complications thereof. Hence, from the aforesaid fact and circumstances, it should not be construed that the death was due to custodial torture. Soon after the arrest, memo of arrest and other formalities were complied with. Due intimation was sent to IIC, Rambha P.S. in Ganjam District, IIC, Dasapalla P.S. in Nayagarh district to inform the family members/relatives of arrestee through VHF message as per address given by the arrestee. On due verification by IIC, Rambha P.S., he could not able to trace out the identity and whereabouts of the arrestee as well as his family members to inform them regarding his arrest and detention at Chamakhandi P.S. In the meantime, the said detainee who had identified himself as Raju Nayak, attempted to committee suicide on the same day at about 8.30 AM while in Chamakhandi P.S. Hazart. Thereafter, he was shifted to S.D. Hospital, Chatrapur and admitted there at 9.45 A.M. and while undergoing treatment he was declared dead by the treating Medical Officer Dr. A.K. Sashani at 11.10 A.M. During the course of investigation, the deceased was found to be impersonating himself in multiple identities. It is not a fact that the police personnel of Chamakhandi P.S. had arrested the deceased on 9.2.2011 and taken him to custody along with other two accused women. In fact, he was arrested on 01.3.2011 at 2.40 A.M. in connection with Ganjam District 9 Chamakhandi P.S. Case No.14 dated 1.3.2011 u/s. 25(I-B) Arms Act. The dead body of the deceased was kept preserved at MKCG Medical College, Berhampur for 96 hours to facilitate the identification of the deceased. On 3.03.2011 one Ritima Dehury W/o- Late Udayanath Dehury of village Kankanamendi, PS- Banigocha, Nayagarh along with her elder son Upendra Dehury and villagers Arjuna Mallik and Bijaya Podha approached Chamakhandi P.S. and claimed that she had seen the photograph of the deceased in the media and that the deceased is her son. She produced her voter identity card as a proof. Her claim was verified. Later on she along with her elder son and the villagers identified the dead body kept at morgue house of FM&T Department of MKCG Medical College & Hospital, Berhampur as that of her son Lalit Dehury. The dead body was duly handed over to her in presence of Executive Magistrate Sri Berhampur Rabindra on 3.3.2011 Kumar Sabat, OAS, Addl. following due formalities Tahasildar, under proper acknowledgement. The statements of Upendra Dehury, the elder brother of the deceased, Arjuna Mallik and Bijaya Podha (cousin brothers), who accompanied the petitioner, namely, Ritima Dehury, W/o-Late Udayanath Dehury of village Kankanamendi, P.S. Banigocha, Nayagarh District have been recorded in presence of Sri A.D. Das, OAS, Tahadsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Chatrapur, who stated that Lalit Dehury left their village since 7 years back and his whereabouts were not known to them. After seeing the photograph of the deceased from newspaper and T.V. they could petitioner along with others identify Lalit Dehury and then the including her elder son came to 10 Chamakhandi P.S. and M.K.C.G. Medical College & Hospital, Berhampur and identified the dead body to be that of her son Lalit Dehury and thereafter took possession of the said dead body under proper acknowledgement.
9. All other formalities have been observed as per the guidelines of the apex Court laid down in D.K. Basu’s case (supra) reported in AIR 199.SC 610.Pursuant to the direction of the District Magistrate and Collector, Ganjam Sri A.K. Das, Tahasildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Chatrapur has conducted magisterial enquiry into the death of the detainee, who had given his identity as Raju Nayak and subsequently identified as Lalit Dehuri of Kankanamendi, District- Nayagarh. Viscera of the said deceased has been sent to SFSL, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar for chemical examination on 4.3.2011. This is a clear case of suicide. Therefore, this is not a fit case to initiate criminal proceeding against any officer. The OIC of the concerned Police Station and all other staff of the P.S. took step to save the life of the deceased and get him treated at the hospital. Cases have been investigated and enquiry has been made by Sri P.K. Jally, SDPO, Chatrapur, who is not a staff of Chamakhandi P.S. Sri T.P. Patra, DSP, Hd. Qrs. Ganjam, is the supervising officer in these cases. The investigation has already been de-linked from the PS. Hence, there is no question of tampering of evidence. The Orissa Human Rights Commission has taken cognizance of the matter on 3.3.2011 vide Case No.483 of 2011. Thus, there is an independent agency to look into the matter. Since the deceased left the village seven years back and his whereabouts were not known to anybody of his village including his 11 family members, it is clearly evident that the deceased was not in contact with not was looking after his widowed mother and other family members, who were not dependent on the earning of the deceased and hence the claim of compensation is not justified. The magisterial inquiry report has also revealed that it is a case of suicide. Concluding his argument learned Government Advocate submitted for dismissal of the writ petition.
10. On the rival contentions of the parties, the only question that arises for consideration by this Court is as to whether due to negligence on the part of the State functionaries and torture by police personnel the deceased died?.
11. The admitted fact is that the deceased was found hanging from the iron rods fixed to the ventilator of the Police Station hazat. The deceased at the time of death was about 31 years and it is the case of the police that he was riding Hero Honda Motor Cycle and carrying a pistol and 5 rounds of live ammunitions. Considering the above facts, even assuming that the plea of the Police that the deceased committed suicide, it is very difficult to accept that in absence of any ill treatment and mental torture, the deceased committed suicide in the police hazat. In any event, it is the bounden duty of the Police to take all precautions to see that an accused in custody should not get any scope to commit suicide. There is nothing on record or any material was brought to our notice that any effort was taken by the police in charge of the Police Station to take any such precaution”
12. Needless to say that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several decisions has observed that the precious right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to the under trial or other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law. The Police authority has got a greater responsibility to ensure that an accused, who is a citizen of the country, in custody is not deprived of his right to life. He must be afforded with minimum necessities of life.
13. The apex Court in the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 199.SC 61.held as follows: “Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the Rules of Law. The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution require to be jealously and scrupulously protected. Court cannot wish away the problem. Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. If the functionaries of the Government become law breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto himself thereby leading to anarchism. No civilised nation can permit that to happen. Does a citizen shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a policeman arrests him?. Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest ?. These questions touch the spinal cord of human rights jurisprudence. The answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic ‘No’. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, under trials, detenus and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law.”
. 13 The apex Court, in the case of Chameli Singh & others Vs.
14. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, AIR 199.SC 1051.held as follows: “Right to life”. means to live like a human being and it is not ensured by meeting only the animal needs of man. It includes the right to live in any civilised society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter.”
15. The term “life”. used in Article 21 of the Constitution of India has a wide and far-reaching concept. It means something more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against the deprivation of life extends to all those limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed. (vide Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni, AIR 198.SC 109.Olga Tellis & Ors. Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors., AIR 198.SC 180.
16. In the case at hand, we are not satisfied that without any torture and harassment the petitioner had to commit suicide. In such situation, the mother of the deceased is entitled to get compensation.
17. In the present case no enquiry was held by any Judicial Magistrate as provided u/s. 176 (1A) of the Cr. P.C. Therefore, we direct that the matter be enquired into by a Judicial Officer not below the rank of S.D.J.M. or Collector of the district and on the basis of such report proceedings be initiated against the Police personnel who are involved in the offence if the report will be submitted against them under the provisions of the Cr. P.C”
18. At this juncture, it is profitable to refer to some paragraphs from the decision of the apex Court in D.K.Basu (supra) wherein the apex Court held as under:
“42. Some punitive provisions are contained in the Indian Penal Code which seek to punish violation of right to life. Section 220 provides for punishment to an officer or authority who detains or keeps a person in confinement with a corrupt or malicious motive. Sections 330 and 331, provide for punishment of those who inflict injury or grievous hurt on a person to extort confession or information in regard to commission of an offence. Illustration (a) and (b) to Section 330 make a police officer guilty of torturing a person in order to induce him to confess the commission of a crime or to induce him to point out places where stolen property is deposited. Section 330, therefore, directly makes torture during interrogation and investigation punishable under the Indian Penal Code. These statutory provisions are, however, inadequate to repair the wrong done to the citizen. Prosecution of the offender is an obligation of the State in case of every crime but the victim of crime needs to be compensated monetarily also. The Court, where the infringement of the fundamental right is established, therefore, cannot stop by giving a mere declaration. It must proceed further and give compensatory relief, not by way of damages as in a civil action but by way of compensation under the public law jurisdiction for the wrong done, due to breach of public duty by the State of not protecting the fundamental right to life of the citizen. To repair the wrong done and give judicial redress for legal injury is compulsion of judicial conscience. xxxx xxxx xxxx 55. Thus, to sum up, it is not a well accepted proposition in most of the jurisdiction, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts. The claim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the defence of sovereign immunity is not available and the citizen must receive 15 the amount of compensation from the State, which shall have the right to be indemnified by the wrong doer. In the assessment of compensation, the emphasis has to be on the compensatory and not on punitive element. The objective is to apply balm to the wounds and not to punish the transgressor or the offender, as awarding appropriate punishment for the offence (irrespective of compensation) must be left to the Criminal Courts in which the offender is prosecuted, which the State, in law, is duty bound to do. The award of compensation in the public law jurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other action like civil suit for damages which is lawfully available to the victim or the heirs of the deceased victim with respect to the same matter for the tortious act committed by the functionaries of the State. The quantum of compensation will, of course, depend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be evolved in that behalf. The relief to redress the wrong for the established invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under the public law jurisdiction is, thus, in addition to the traditional remedies and not in derogation of them. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Court and paid by the State to redress the wrong done, may in a given case, be adjusted against any amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of damages in a civil suit.”
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera Vs. State of Orissa & Ors., AIR 199.SC 1960.held as under: “In Rudul Sah, AIR 198.SC 1086.it was held that in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, this Court can grant compensation for deprivation of a fundamental right. That was a case of violation of the petitioner's right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Chandrachud, CJ., dealing with this aspect, stated as under: (SCC pp. 147-48, paras 9 and
10) “It is true that Article 32 cannot be used as a substitute for the enforcement of rights and obligations which can be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary processes of courts, civil and criminal. A money claim has therefore to be agitated in and adjudicated upon in a suit 16 instituted in a court of lowest grade competent to try it. But the important question for our consideration is whether in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, this Court can pass an order for the payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of a fundamental right. The instant case is illustrative of such cases.... ... The petitioner could have been relegated to the ordinary remedy of a suit if his claim to compensation was factually controversial, in the sense that a civil court may or may not have upheld his claim. But we have no doubt that if the petitioner files a suit to recover damages for his illegal detention, a decree for damages would have to be passed in that suit, though it is not possible to predicate, in the absence of evidence, the precise amount which would be decreed in his favour. In these circumstances, the refusal of this Court to pass an order of compensation in favour of the petitioner will be doing mere lip-service to his fundamental right to liberty which the State Government has so grossly violated. Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denuded of its significant content if the power of this Court were limited to passing orders to release from illegal detention. One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in the payment of monetary compensation. Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant infringements of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by any other method open to the judiciary to adopt. The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield. If civilisation is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too well known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's rights. It may have recourse against those officers.”
20. In the peculiar fact situation of the case and keeping in mind the age of the deceased, we direct the opposite parties to pay a 17 compensation of Rs.4 lakhs to the petitioner-widowed mother of the deceased. Out of the total amount of compensation Rs.3,50,000/- shall be kept in a fixed deposit in any nationalized Bank of her choice for a period of 5 years and after completion of 5 years Rs.3,50,000/- along with accrued interest shall be again reinvested in fixed deposit. The monthly interest accrued against such deposit shall be paid to the widowed mother in every succeeding month on proper identification. The balance Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner-mother in cash on proper identification. The total amount of compensation shall be paid within a period of four weeks from today. If the same is not paid within the time stipulated, it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this writ petition, i.e., 23.03.2011 till the date of payment of such compensation. If any amount out of the amount directed to be kept in fixed deposit is required to meet any pressing need or any developmental work of the family of the petitioner, the same shall be withdrawn by filing an application before this Court for grant of such permission.
21. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is partly allowed. Rule issued. ……………………… B.N. Mohapatra,J.V. Gopala Gowda, C. J.I agrée. ….……………………. Chief Justice Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 14th March, 2012/ssd/ss/skj