Court : Orissa
Reported in : 101(2006)CLT185; [2006(109)FLR600]
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. All these Writ Petitions involve common questions of facts and law and as such they are being disposed of by this judgment.2. The State of Orissa in the Revenue Department and the Collector, Malkangiri have challenged the judgment and order dated 9.7.2002 in a batch of O.As, leading case of which was O. A. No. 1448 of 2001. They have also challenged the Order dated 10.1.2003 on the application for clarification filed by the intervenors and the petitioners in the said O.As. passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar.3. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 1996 a recruitment was conducted by the Collector, Malkangiri for appointment on the posts of Junior Clerks in his district. Some unsuccessful candidates had challenged that selection before the Tribunal by filing some O. As. including O. A. No. 874 of 1996 which were declared in a batch by a common judgment and order dated 10.9.1997 with the direction that a fresh select list of successful...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 101(2006)CLT122; [2006(108)FLR1142]
..... (named in the impugned order) were junior to him, he was preferred to be retrenched in contravention of section 25-g of the act. he also told that one hrushikesh mohapatra and pitabasa rout were given appointment as peon without considering his case for such appointment. petitioner further stated that his ..... he was engaged as nmr w.e.f. 17.6.1985 and continued as such till 30th april, 2001, he was retrenched under section 25-f of the industrial dispute act, 1947 (in short 'the act') and in lieu thereof wage for a period of one month was paid to him. his grievance is that though similarly situated several persons ..... on an average five hundred workmen were working in the establishment and therefore the order of retrenchment is illegal being in contravention of section 25-n of the act.4. claim of the writ petitioner before the presiding officer, labour court, sambalpur was that because of the necessity to cut down the size of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 101(2006)CLT125; [2006(109)FLR131]
ORDER1. Heard Mr. A.K. Mishra, Learned Counsel for the Railways and Mr. Ashok Das, Learned Counsel for the caveator-Opp. Party.2. This Writ Application is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 107 of 2002, which was filed by the caveator-Opp. Party. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application holding that the caveator-Opp. Party is entitled to get the family pension and consequently directed the petitioners to immediately grant family pension to her by computing the entire period of service rendered by her husband in the Railways.3. The facts of the case are that the Late husband of the caveator-Opp. Party, namely, Brahmananda Pati was initially engaged as temporary Railway employee under the Bridge Inspector, South Eastern Railway, Bhadrak on 24.9.1970 on casual basis with authorised scale of pay. His widow, i.e. the caveator-Opp. Party filed the Original Application before the Centr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 101(2006)CLT129
..... government including officers of paramilitary and armed forces and officers of state governments. what is important is that the officers acting under section 42(1) act without authorisation. since the officers act without authorisation, sub-section (2) contains the requirement of sending copy of information on which they take action which they are required to note ..... information about contraband drug being stored at the premises in question. second, it is not sending copy of information in terms of sub-section (2) of section 42 of the act to the immediate official superior. the first point is answered by a reference to memo of search proceeding, exhibit p-1 which shows ..... both the accused.3. the learned counsel for the appellant raised the following points:1. non-association of independent witnesses.2. non-compliance with section 42 of the ndps act, inasmuch as the information said to have been received by the assistant commissioner of prohibition and excise, p.w. 1, was not reduced to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 100(2005)CLT735; 2005(II)OLR718
..... should be allowed an opportunity to cross-examine. the right to cross-examine a witness who is called by a court arises not under the provision of section 311, but under the evidence act which gives a party the right to cross-examine a witness who is not his own witness. since a witness summoned by the court could not be ..... a witness, who is not his own witness. in that view of the matter the court should give the right of cross-examination to the affected party. sub-section (2) of section 231 cr.p.c. empowers a judge with discretion to permit, for sufficient reason, the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred or recall prosecution witness for ..... by recalling the witness before closure of the prosecution evidence, if any fresh materials for further effective cross-examination of a witness comes to the knowledge of the defence. section 311 cr.p.c. permits the court at any stage of any enquiry, trial or proceeding, under the code to summon any person as a witness or examine any .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2006Ori69
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. This review is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd of August, 1999 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Second Appeal No. 280 of 1991.2. Plaintiff was the appellant before this Court against a reversing judgment. Case of the plaintiff is that one Giridhari Tripathy executed a Hukumnama on 10-7-1932 in respect of a piece of land measuring Ac. 2.76 decimals authorizing him to reclaim the area and make it fit for cultivation and in return, plaintiff was to possess the same for a period of ten years and appropriate the usufructs. In the year 1935, the plaintiff started cultivation. After death of Giridhari, his son Shyamasundar asked the father of the plaintiff to give up possession of the land in the year 1936. However, the father of the plaintiff did not agree and continued to possess the land till 1960. The plaintiff thereafter continued to remain in possession till 1984 without any interruption. In the year 1984, Kendrapara municipa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2006Ori20
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. Defendant No. 5 in T.S. No. 139 of 2002 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st Court, Cuttack has Filed this revision challenging the order dated 4-8-2005 passed by the trial Court in the said suit rejecting the petition filed by the plaintiff for Withdrawal of the suit as well as allowing the application filed by the defendant No. 4 for his transposition to the category of plaintiff.2. So far as, the first part of the, order regarding dismissal of the application filed by the plaintiff for withdrawal of the suit is concerned, it was fairly contended that the defendant No. 5 cannot challenge the said order and therefore this revision petition is confined to the order dealing with the application filed by the defendant No. 4 under Order 23, Rule 1 -A of the Code of Civil Procedure for being, transposed to the category of the plaintiff.3. Shri Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner challenging the impugned order s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2006(1)OLR31
..... to an end. the period for which the ban order was imposed was liable to be excluded from the life of the select list as it was not possible to act upon the select list, though selected candidates were available, due to ban order. therefore, we are of the view that the life of the select list would be counted excluding .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 101(2006)CLT651
..... has failed to prove that the alleged offence was committed in furtherance of the common intention of all the appellants, the learned sessions judge has acted illegally in convicting all the three appellants under sections 302/34, ipc. it is well settled in law that the existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime is an essential ..... in ch. pulla reddy and ors. v. state of andhra pradesh air 1993 sc 1899. section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself. for applying section 34 is it not necessary to show some overt act on the part of the accused.8. we do not feel it necessary to delve into this ..... furtherance of such intention. as a result of the application of principles enunciated in section 34, when an accused is convicted under section 302 read with section 34, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. the provision is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 101(2006)CLT257; [2006(109)FLR265]; 2005(II)OLR637
A.K. Parichha, J.1. In this application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash the order of transfer dated 10/12.2.2004, Annexure-3, charge-sheet dated 22.2.2004, Annexure-8 and the orders passed by the Enquiry Officer in the said proceeding, Annexures-9 and 10.2. Petitioner while working as Senior Crane Operator-I in Rourkela Steel Plant applied for his transfer to the newly opened unit of Nilachal Ispat Nigam Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as 'NINL') situated at Duburi on the ground that his brother met a premature death and that he has to look after the family of his deceased brother. His representation was allowed and by virtue of order dated 6.8.2002, Annexure-2, he joined at the Duburi unit of NINL. While working there, he was served with office order dated 10/12.2.2004, Annexure-3, transferring him to Dolvi unit of NINL. Petitioner made a representation on 14.2.2004, Annexure-4 requesting the Deputy General Manager (P & A) to canc...
Tag this Judgment!