Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536538',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536538',
		(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536538',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536538',
	(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536538/harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536538',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536538',
		(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536538',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536538',
	(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536538/harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536538',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536538',
		(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536538',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536538',
	(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536538/harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536538',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536538',
		(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536538',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536538',
	(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536538/harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

orderm.m. das, j.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the state.the petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the orissa public distribution system order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the o.p.d.s. (control) order, 2002 for ward no. 16 of cuttack municipal corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a criminal case by the purighat police station, which is now sub-judiced in g.r. case no. 484 of 2006 before the learned s.d.j.m., cuttack with regard to allegations under sections 419/420, i.p.c.mr. m.k. das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a criminal case, ipso facto, does not entail.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536538',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536538',
		(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536538',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536538',
	(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536538/harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORDER

M.M. Das, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536538',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536538',
		(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536538',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536538',
	(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536538/harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536538',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536538',
		(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536538',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536538',
	(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536538/harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536538',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536538',
		(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536538',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536538',
	(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536538/harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536538',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536538',
		(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536538',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536538',
	(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536538/harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536538',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536538',
		(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536538',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536538',
	(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536538/harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536538',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536538',
		(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536538',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536538',
	(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536538/harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536538',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536538',
		(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536538',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536538',
	(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536538/harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536538',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536538',
		(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs State of Orissa and Two ors - Citation 536538 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536538',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-10-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.</p><p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.</p><p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.</p><p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.</p><p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.</p><p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.</p><p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536538',
	(int) 1 => 'harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536538/harekrishna-sahoo-vs-state-orissa-two-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Criminal
Court	Orissa High Court
Decided On	Oct-30-2008
Judge	M.M. Das, J.
Reported in	107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932
Appellant	Harekrishna Sahoo
Respondent	State of Orissa and Two ors.

Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors. - Court Judgment