Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori17
B.P. Das, J.1. The writ petitioner, a retired Judge of this High Court, was appointed as the Lokpal under Section 3 of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995 (Orissa Act 8 of 1995) and he assumed the said office on 16-2-1997. He has been constrained to approach this Court for redressal of his grievance. The petitioner in this writ petition prays to quash the letter dated 12-2-2001 issued by the State Government in Public Grievance and Pension Administration Department, vide Annexure-5, wherein it was clarified that the relief extended to Justice S.K. Ray, ex Lokpal, pursuant to the decision or this Court in O. J. C. No. 10896 of 1998 (reported in 90 (2000) CLT 362 : Justice S.K. Ray v. State of Orissa), cannot be made available to the petitioner since his case is not similarly situated with that of Justice S.K. Ray, ex Lokpal. The claim of the petitioner is that he has not been paid the enhanced salary and allowances as admissible to the Chief Justice of the High Court.2. The Lokpa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR205
R.N. Biswal, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.9.1992 passed by the Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1989 setting aside the judgment and order dated 2.5.1989 passed by the C.J.M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Sessions Trial No. 35/16 of 1987/88 wherein he convicted the accused (respondent) for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced him thereunder to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for six months more.2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that accused is a distant relative of the alleged victim (P.W.1) and as such he had visiting term with the family members of the victim. It is alleged that some time in the month of Jyestha of the year 1986, while the victim, a girl of less than 16 years was alone in her study room, accused came there and without her consent and against her will squeezed her breasts and forcibly lifted her to a room and comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 109(2010)CLT247
B.P. Ray, J.1. In this Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the Order Dated 12.03.2007 passed by Opp. Party No. 3 the Divisional Forest Officer, Satkosia Wild Life Division, Angul & Order Dated 16.04.2008 passed by the Opp. Party No. 4- Conservator of Forests, Angul Circle, Angul rejecting his application for issue of Timber Transit Permit (in short, 'T.T. Permit') for removal of trees standing over his private stitiban recorded lands situated in mouza Purunakote, Plot No. 3 of Khata No. 109/42 measuring an area of Ac. 7.93 decimals under Angul Tahasil in the district of Angul.2. In the year 1962, the Petitioner purchased the aforesaid land & has been recorded in the Record of Rights as stitiban status. The kisam of land is 'Taila'. After reclamation of the land, the Petitioner planted 3000 teak stumps in the said plot in the year 1971. In May, 1976, by a notification Under Section 18 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT275
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2009(1)OLR44
Indrajit Mahanty, J.1. The petitioner-Smt. Sudha Das, wife of Lata Kishore Chandra Das has filed this writ application on behalf of her minor children, namely, Mamata Das and Rooja Das, aged about 17 years and 10 years respectively.2. The petitioner had approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 1494 (C) of 2007 on behalf of her minor children praying for grant of pensionary benefits and Other statutory dues after the death of her husband who was working as a process Server (Class-IV employee) under opposite parties 1 and 2. The Tribunal disposed the aforesaid O.A. in the following directions:We are not here to decide the status of a kept wife in so far as the payment of retiral dues of gratuity of a deceased Government servant is concerned. It is for the appropriate authority to take a decision in the matter. Therefore, a copy of the paper book be sent to Respondent-1 to take appropriate decision in the matter. He is at liberty to consult the pen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 107(2009)CLT208; 2009(1)OLR819
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The dispute in this Writ Petition is with regard to entitlement of the Petitioner to receive family pension. The Petitioner is a widow .Her husband late Syed Musraf Ali was working as a Sepoy in 120 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army) from 21st June, 1956 till 20th June, 1971. He was assigned No. 10256910. After serving the Army for fifteen years he was disengaged. Thereafter he approached the authorities for grant of pension, but no steps were taken by the latter. His family passed their days through stringent financial difficulties. Unfortunately due to lack of food and medical care he died on 19th May, 1975 leaving behind the Petitioner as his widow and five minor children. Thereafter the Petitioner once again approached the authorities for grant of pension of her deceased husband and family pension to her. All her requests having been in vain, she had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4043 of 2007. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 23rd July, 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2009(II)OLR779
ORDERP.K. Patel, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.2. Heard.3. The petitioners have filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 13.9.2007 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (R), Cuttack in G.R. Case No. 1144 of 2006 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 498-A/377/294/323/114/406/506/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.4. It appears that G.R. Case No. 1144 of 2006 was registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner No. 4 against petitioners 1, 2 and 3. Petitioner No. 1 is the brother of petitioner No. 2 Petitioner No. 3 is petitioner No. 2's wife. It is not disputed that the petitioner No. 4 was legally married wife of petitioner No. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as petitioners 1 and 4, who are present in Court, upon reference to documents annexed to this application submit that in Civil P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2009(II)OLR361
S. Panda, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.12.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack in CMA No. 514 of 2007 arising out of Execution Case No. 4 of 2007 rejecting the petitioners application on the ground that the petitioners had no locus stand to file petition under Section 151 of CPC as they were not parties to the execution proceeding nor was any decree going to be executed against them.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:Opposite party No. 1-Sunanda Pattanaik along with one Sidhartha Pattanaik are the recorded landholders of Plot No.1202 measuring an area Ac.0.108 dec. under Khata No.1109 of Mouza Cuttack Town Unit No.22, P.S. Mangalabag. In the year 1994, Sidhartha Pattanaik tried to evict petitioner No.1 from the suit plot and failed. Thereafter, opposite party No.1 filed Civil Suit No.412 of 2003 against Sidhartha Pattanaik claiming that the entire suit land be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 103(2007)CLT281
B.P. Das, J.1. The Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff of two Schools, namely, Saraswati Vidya Mandir (in sort, S.V.M.) located at Nalco Nagar in Angul District and at Damanjodi in Koraput District, have filed these two Writ Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to direct the National Aluminium Company Ltd. (in short, NALCO) to treat them as the employees of NALCO and to give them all consequential benefits as are extended to the employees of NALCO. As the facts and points of law involved in both these Writ Petitions are same, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. The brief facts, as delineated in the Writ Petitions, tend to reveal that the National Aluminium Company Ltd. (NALCO), which is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a Government of India Enterprise having its Registered Office at Bhubaneswar, is engaged in manufacture and production of Alumina and Aluminium ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2007CriLJ4792; I(2008)DMC491NULL
R.N. Biswal, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Orissa against the judgment and order dated 1-10-1992 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Anandpur in S.T. Case No. 19/49 of 1992 wherein he acquitted the accused persons of the charge under Sections 304B/498A of IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act.2. Shorn of unnecessary details the prosecution case is that on 12-7-1991 accused Sachindra Behera led deceased Manorama to the altar in accordance with Hindu rites and their caste custom. The father of the deceased, in keeping with his financial capacity presented some household articles and ornaments to the deceased before the marriage alter. Accused Sachindra Behera demanded a gold chain at the time of Pakhalkhia and when it could not be complied with skirmishes erupted between the couple. There was also illicit relationship between accused Sachindra and accused Snehalata Behera, the wife of his brother who added fuel to the fire in their strained relationship. He, along with ...
Tag this Judgment!