Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-31-2003
Reported in : 2003(II)OLR637
..... , kasinath das and dinabandhu panigrahi should not have been superfluously dealt with and disposed of by opposite party no. 5 in as much as sub-section (3) of section 12 of the orissa prevention of land encroachment act, 1972 confers revisional jurisdiction to check illegality and impropriety in orders of settlement or denial of settlement land. therefore he should have verified and in ..... consideration to reject the recommendation of the opposite party no. 2. we do not find illegality in the impugned orders. the plot under encroachment belongs to reserve category therefore the act of denial of settlement of the said land with the petitioner is found not to be illegal, unjust or improper.6. the aforesaid contention of the petitioner relating to settlement .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-30-2003
Reported in : 97(2004)CLT264
..... to the effect that they are physically handicapped at the time of submitting application forms.7. section 2(i) of the act 'the persons with disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) act, 1995 defines disability which includes under clause (v), a locomotor disability to which category the petitioner ..... any form of cerebral palsy. persons under disability in terms of sub-section (t) means, a person suffering from not less than 40% of any disability as certified by a medical authority. section 39 of the act requires all government educational institutions and other educational institutions receiving aid from the ..... claims to belong. subsection (o) of section 2 defines locomotor disability to mean disability of the bones, joints or muscles .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-29-2003
Reported in : 2003(II)OLR586
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by 25 petitioners, who intend to apply for recruitment to the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II. Case of the writ petitioners inter alia is that the last examination for recruitment to the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II was held in 1999-2000 and thereafter more than three years have passed, but the State Government has not taken any steps for recruitment of candidates to fill up the existing vacancies in Orissa Judicial Service, Class II. As a result of such delay, there is serious frustration amongst the petitioners. The petitioners have therefore prayed for a direction to the State Government to issue a notification for the examination for recruitmenL to the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II immediately. The petitioners have also prayed for a tentative time frame to be fixed by the Court for completion of the entire selection process. The petitioners have further prayed that some outside Universities may be short-listed for setting the question ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-20-2003
Reported in : AIR2004Ori34; II(2005)BC527; 96(2003)CLT696
..... is to consider prayer of the petitioners for payment of compensation. in view of our finding that taking over of the hotel unit by the corporation under section 29 of the act was illegal and improper, the question that remains to be considered is what compensation the petitioners should be entitled to it is evident from the record that ..... the same. even accepting such contention that the unit had been abandoned and the corporation in order to protect the property, had taken over the same under section 29 of the act, before putting it to sale by auction, we are of the view that the corporation was duty bound to find out as to whether the original loanee ..... instead of taking any such step, the hotel unit was taken over by the corporation in the month of january, 1997 without issuing any further notice under section 30 of the act for non-payment of instalment which was due on 31.12.96. confronted with the aforesaid position, learned counsel appearing for the corporation submitted that since the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-17-2003
Reported in : 2003(II)OLR549
..... court except with the sanction of the state government.sub-section (2) of section 132 stipulates that no executive magistrate or police officer acting under sections 129 to 131 crpc in good faith shall be deemed to have thereby committed an offence.6. a cumulative reading of ..... i have no hesitation to hold that both the courts below have lost sight of the purpose of legislation and enactment of sections 132 and 197 in the code of criminal procedure and have acted erroneously and in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon them.the petitioner, an officer of the orissa administrative service, and an ..... the duty to maintain law and order to use armed forces to disperse the assembly if contingencies arise.5. section 132 crpc gives protection to any person against any act purported to have been done under section 129 or 130 or 131 crpc and stipulates that no prosecution against such person shall be instituted in any criminal .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-17-2003
Reported in : 2003(II)OLR545
..... the said date and he was also entitled to the consequential benefits. the recommendation of the committee was made as back as on 1.11.1995 whereas the validation act came into force in the year 1998. thus the state government which constituted the high power committee, sat upon the recommendation for a period of three years for no ..... lecturers whose cases were recommended by the high power committee and to disburse the grant-in-aid. relying upon the said decision as well as the provisions of the validation act, 1998, this court directed the opposite parties to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner as lecturer in oriya (4th post) and to extend all benefits to ..... the review application submitted that as the service of opp. party no.l were validated in accordance with the validation act, 1998, he is not entitled to any salary prior to 17.10.1998 on which date the validation act, 1998 came into force and the judgment should be reviewed to the said extent.7. reading of the order .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-15-2003
Reported in : 2003(II)OLR632
..... to undergo r.i. for three moths and to pay a fine of rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo r.i. for 15 days for. the offence under section 4 d.p. act, is impugned in this appeal.2. bereft of all unnecessary details, the short facts necessaiy for appreciating the case, are stated herein below :an f.i.r. (ext ..... humiliated by the said fact, his sister committed suicide. the belated attempt made by the prosecution to rope in the appellants for commission of offence under section 498-a i.p.c. and section 4 d.p. act appears to be an after-thought, and with an avowed oblique motive to wriggle out of repayment of the amount borrowed.12. to bring home ..... acquitted appellant no. 2 of the said charge.7. the appellants, in this appeal, have challenged the portion of the order convicting them under section 498-a i.p.c. and section 4 of the d.p. act. it is pertinent to mention here that no appeal has been preferred by the state challenging the order of the court below acquitting the appellants .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-14-2003
Reported in : 96(2003)CLT550; 2003(II)OLR559
..... be answered satisfactorily. that means, sufficient cause for not filing appeal is a condition precedent for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court by section 5 of the limitation act. even if sufficient cause is shown, the duty of the court is to enquire whether or not delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion ..... singh v. kanshiram reported in 1997 privy council 156, it was observed that true guide for a court to exercise the discretion under section 5 of the limitation act is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. in sakuntala devi jain v. kuntala kumari reported in 1969 s.c. 575, a bench ..... for the opposite party urged like this :appeal being barred by prescription of time is not maintainable. only upon sufficient cause being shown as contemplated under section 16(3) of the act delay in filing the appeal can be condoned. the fact that appellant having come to know that opposite party (respondent) filed an appeal before delhi .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-24-2003
Reported in : 2003(II)OLR531
..... the aforesaid written report, an f.i.r. was registered at gangapur police station against the appellant. after usual investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellant under section 302,i.p.c. in course of time, the case was committed to the court of session. on transfer, the case was ultimately tried before the learned trial ..... of the sole appellant pravakar swain is directed against the judgment dated 2.3.1996 passed by the learned first additional sessions judge, berhampur convicting the appellant under section 302, ipc and sentencing him thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.2. prosecution case, in brief, is that on 4.7.1991 at or about 6 ..... in his presence or that the sharp-cutting weapon locally called 'kati' was recovered in his presence. in these circumstances, it is very difficult for us to act upon the evidence of p.ws.l and 2 to sustain the conviction and sentence of the appellant without entertaining serious doubt in our mind.6. the next important .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-24-2003
Reported in : 2003(II)OLR518
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application calls in question the legality of the order in Annexure-5 issued by the opposite party No. 5 rejecting the security bid given by the petitioner and holding the tender as non-responsive in terms of ITB Clause 16.3.2. Case of the petitioner is that it is a joint venture firm and takes up different works in the State of Orissa. Opposite party No. 2 through the Orissa State Disaster Mitigation Authority (OSDMA) invited sealed bids for the work C.D.R. to Kartiachira Drainage System in Balasore District in Package No. ST/BLDS-I which was approximately valued at Rs. 1,87,38,140/-. The petitioner being joint venture firm participated in the bid along with four others. The petitioner's bid being the lowest responsive bid, decision was taken to recommend petitioner's bid for approval and accordingly the Chief Engineer, Drainage Division, Cuttack (opposite party No. 2) forwarded the same to the opposite party No. 3. On 8.5.2003 the Tender...
Tag this Judgment!