Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT149
M.M. Das, J.1. M/s. MESCO Kalinga Steel Limited (in short, 'the MESCO') the Petitioner herein, has approached this Court in the present Writ Petition for a second time, inter alia, challenging the notice dated 4.7.2003 issued by the Opp. Party No. 1-IDCO directing the Petitioner to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 22,84,48, 890.00 and for execution of the lease deed, notice dated 25.7.2003 issued by the IDCO cancelling the deed of delivery and resuming the land back, letter dated 26.9.2003 issued by the IDCO refusing to withdraw the notice of resumption dated 25.7.2003 and the Order Dated 25.2.2004 issued by the IDCO rejecting the Petitioner's representation dated 20.1.2004 pursuant to the order passed by this Court in an earlier Writ Petition.2. For just appreciation of the case, it is necessary to go into the facts of the case, in brief, which are as follows:The Government of Orissa being desirous of utilizing its enormous natural resources and in order to promote industrialization ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1(2007)ACC488
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Since all the aforesaid three writ petitions, on consent of the parties, were heard analogously, being involving common question of law, such writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In W.P. (C) No. 6070 of 2003 case of the petitioner is that he is a State carriage operator within the State. The opposite parties 2 to 4 i.e., State Transport Authority, Orissa, Chairman, State Transport Authority, Orissa, and Secretary, State Transport Authority, Orissa together with the opposite parties 6 and 7, i.e., the Chairman, State Transport Authority, West Bengal and Secretary, State Transport Authority, West Bengal, who are the countersigning authorities, are illegally grating temporary stage carriage permits in breach of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') and more particularly provision in Section 88(1) of the said Act. Petitioners' further case is that both the State Governments are deliberately not determining the routes to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (2010)27VST387(Orissa)
ORDER1. Heard Mr. J. Sahu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dalai, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Revenue.2. The petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and has been granted a TIN number, challenged the order of assessment dated April 21, 2007 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Bhanjanagar Circle, Bhanjanagar, Ward A, opposite party No. 2, under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 vide annexure 2 on the following grounds:That the provisions of Section 2(4) of the OVAT Act defining the expression 'assessing authority' being relevant the same are reproduced below:Section 2. (4) 'assessing authority' means any officer appointed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 who is authorized by the Commissioner to make assessment under this Act.The provisions of Rule 34(8) and Rule 34(12) of the OVAT Rules, 2005 being relevant the same are reproduced below:Rule 34. (8) The return under Sub-rule (1) shall be filed in the range and the ret...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(II)OLR996
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department.2. The petitioner appeared in the Upper Primary Certificate Examination, 2007-08. Though the petitioner expected more marks in the Science paper, Drawing and Geography paper, but was awarded marks lesser than his expectation. He made an application for supply of xerox copies of the answer scripts as well as for rechecking. The District Examination Committee initimated the petitioner with regard to the result of rechecking of his answer scripts in Drawing and Geography, where some marks were increased. But in case of Science paper, the petitioner was intimated that there is no change in the marks awarded. In paragraph-7 of the writ application, the petitioner has mentioned the marks, which should have been awarded to him but the same has not been awarded in the Science Paper.3. A counter affidavit was previously filed by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 and an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori56; 105(2008)CLT330
S. Panda, J.1. On the submission of the Petitioners in the above noted batch of the Writ Petitions, all the cases were taken up for analogous hearing on the ground that common question of law is involved. Therefore, this common Judgment shall abide the result in all the Writ Petitions. It may be noted here that two of the Writ Petitions, out of aforesaid batch of cases, viz. W.P.(C) Nos. 10295 of 2003 and 5803 of 2004 are the disputes of different footing and, therefore, they are being separately dealt with in this Judgment for their effective disposal. Focus of attention of the parties is that the Orissa Education (Payment of Grant-in-Aid to High Schools, Upper Primary Schools, etc.) Order, 2004 (in short, 'G.I.A.'). That order came into force w.e.f. February 5th, 2004 as per the Orissa Gazette (Extraordinary) No. 191 dated 5.2.2004.2. In short, theme and substance of the contentions of the Petitioners in each of the Writ Petitions, is stated below:W.P.(C) No. 10295 of 2003:Petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (2010)28VST87(Orissa)
I. Mahanty, J.1. In the writ application the petitioner, M/s. Rajarishi Exports Ltd., has sought to challenge the order dated January 29, 1994 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack III, Jaipur Road rejecting the petitioner's application for refund on the ground that the purchase made by the petitioner from M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (in short, 'TISCO') on payment of tax cannot be treated as sale in the course of export and as such it is not exempted from tax.2. Mr. Ray, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had entered into a contract with a foreign buyer, namely, M/s. Nissho Ihsai Company of Tokyo, for sale of 50,000 M. T. of high grade Indian chrome ore. It is further submitted that pursuant to the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the foreign buyer, the petitioner also entered into a contract with TISCO for purchase of high grade chrome ore and in obtaining the said material from TISCO, the petitioner suppl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008CriLJ946
R.N. Biswal, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment and order dated 9-8-1991 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Sessions Trial No. 29/4 of 1991 wherein he acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 376 of I. P. C.2. The laconic fact of the prosecution case is that on 29-10-1990 at about 12.00 noon while P. W. 3, a young girl of about 14 years was tending her cattle at Pathurikhol jungle, the accused arrived there and asked her to drive away the cattle which were grazing on an arhar field and no sooner she did so, he came from her back side, physically lifted her and carried her on his shoulder to the arhar field, led her down on the ground, squeezed her breasts, undraped her cloth and committed sexual intercourse on her. When the victim raised hullah, he threatened to throttle her unless she kept quiet and accordingly out of fear she remained silent., After satisfying his lust the accused left the victim high and dry and went away. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2009(1)OLR48
Sanju Panda, J.1. Invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.1.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna in Civil Suit No. 81 of 2005 rejecting the petition filed by the defendant to accept the written statement which was filed beyond the period of 90 days.2. As per the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiff's case is that the present opposite party as plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 81 of 2005 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna for partition. The relationship between the defendant-petitioner and the plaintiff-opposite party is sister and brother. According to the plaintiff, both of them jointly purchased the suit land from out of their separate funds and they are the joint owners of the suit land. They jointly made construction over an area of Ac.0.26 decs. for their residence. On 1.3.2005, the plaintiff personally and through h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2010(I)OLR347
C.R. Mohapatra, Member1. The appellants, who are the residents of village Kankili under Talcher P.S. of Angul district, being aggrieved by the inaction of the State Pollution Control Board, Orissa, (hereinafter 'the Board') on the complaint filed by them, vide Annexure-8 have filed this appeal under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 praying to set aside Consent Order No. 2475 dated 30.7.2008 issued by the Board vide Annexure-7 granting consent in favour of respondent No. 2 Ardee Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd. to operate the coal washery (dry coal beneficiation plant) set up in village Kankilli. The appellants have also prayed for a direction to restrain respondent No. 2 from operating its plant.It may be stated here that the appellants had earlier filed an appeal being Appeal No. 9-A of 2007 before this Authority against the Consent Order dated 24.10.2007 issued by the Board granting consent in favour of Respondent No. 2 to Operate the plant in question. The said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT577
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The Petitioner was selected and appointed temporarily as Grade-II Assistant in the College of Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology on 28.2.1970. The authorities being satisfied with his service on 29.1.1976 promoted him to the post of Grade-II Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs. 320-450/-.On 5.11.1977 the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Clerk in the scale of pay of Rs. 320-450/-.On 31.12.1977 the Petitioner was relieved from the post of Store Keeper to enable him to join as Head Clerk in the Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture. While the. matter stood thus, on 11.2.1981 a common gradation list of Head Clerks was prepared and in the said gradation list, the name of the Petitioner found place at SI. No. 3. In the year 1981 one Mahadeb Sahu and two others filed O.J.C. No. 665 of 1981 before this Court with a prayer to treat them equivalent to Grade-I Assistants working under the same University and also to treat them as seniors to Oppo...
Tag this Judgment!