Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-16-2010
1. These petitions have been filed by the owners of the land acquired by the State Government in favour of the opposite party Anil Agarwal Foundation (hereinafter in short called as Foundation') for establishment of a University in exercise of its eminent domain power under the provisions of Part-VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the L.A. Act' in short). The public interest litigation petitions have been filed both on behalf of the land owners who have no access to justice and also on behalf of the public of the locality of the lands whose public interest is affected by violating Rule of Law in acquiring vast tract of both Government, Temple and private lands in favour of the Foundation. They were listed and heard together by consent of the learned counsel for the parties and are disposed of by this common judgment. With a view to avoid repetition of pleadings and rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, we would briefly state the necessary fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-16-2010
1. The petitioners are the accused persons in I.C.C. Case No. 2710 of 2008 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. The complaint petition was filed by the opp. party no. 1 herein, against the petitioners and other accused persons making allegation of commission of offence under sections 499/500/501/502/34 IPC . The petitioner no. 1 is the Editor of the daily Oriya newspaper, "The Dharitri" and the petitioner no. 2 is its Printer and Publisher. On the complaint petition being filed, the learned S.D.J.M. recorded the initial statement of the complainant and by order dated 26.6.2008, considering the initial deposition of the complainant and the documents available on record found that prima facie evidence of commission of offence under sections 500/501/502/34 IPC is revealed. Hence, he took cognizance of the said offences and directed issuance of process against the accused persons including the two petitioners fixing 21.7.2008 for appearance. The petitioners accused persons as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-21-2010
1. The petitioner, who is an elected member of the Zilla Parishad, Balasore, has filed this writ petition for a declaration that opposite party Nos.6 and 7 who had been elected as President and Vice-President have ceased to hold office in such capacity having not taken oath/affirmation as required under sub-Section (2) of Section 36 of the Orissa Zilla Parishad Act, 1991 and a further declaration that the petitioner being the number one in the panel of elected members is entitled to assume the office of the President of Zilla Parishad in terms of sub-Sections (3) and (4) of Section 9 of the said Act.2. The case of the petitioner is that the elected members of the Balasore Zilla Parishad took oath/affirmation as members of the said Zilla Parishad on 13.3.2007. The first meeting was convened for the purpose of election of President and the nomination was scheduled to be filed between 10.30 A.M. to 12.30 A.M. The nomination papers were scrutinized at 12.30 A.M. and the process for withdra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-22-2010
1. The short question that arises for determination in this writ petition is whether the Paradeep Port Trust, a Major Port is governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity.2. Some of the retired employees of the petitioner-trust, i.e. Paradeep Port Trust have filed several petitions before the Controlling Authority, i.e. opposite party no.1 for payment of differential amount of gratuity under the Act' and seeking various other relief under the Act. On the basis of such applications, the Controlling Authority issued notice to the petitioner-trust directing it to show-cause why relief sought under the Gratuity Act shall not be granted to the employees. Petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing no.8957 of 2005 seeking to quash the notices issued by the Controlling Authority on the plea of lack of jurisdiction.3. Petitioner claimed that it being a 'Major Port' is not coming under the applicability of the Gratuity Act as the relevant Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-23-2010
1. The petitioner, Geomin Minerals & Marketing (P) Ltd. which is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, has filed this writ petition, inter alia with the following prayers:"Order the opposite parties to dispose of all pending applications for Mineral Concessions filed by the petitioner and set out in the petition in accordance with its vested right to preferential consideration in view of the fact that the petitioner's applications have been filed on the first date of availability and eligibility.Issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the opposite parties from considering applications for Mineral Concessions of later applicants to the petitioner until the applications of the petitioner are first considered and disposed of by according priority or preferential right based on the petitioner being a first day applicant having applied for the concerned Mineral Concessions set out in the petition on the first date of a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-15-2010
1. C.R. DASH, J. Section-9 of the Orissa Entry Tax Act, as it stood before amendment by Orissa Entry Tax (Amendment) Act, 2005 (referred to as "Act" in short) provided a limitation of "three years" for reassessment of escaped turn over of a dealer. By the aforesaid amendment in question in the year 2005 Section-9 of the Act was substituted by Section-10, in which the provisions of Section-9 were retained, but the period of limitation of "three years" was substituted by a period of limitation of "five years". The short question that arises for determination in the present writ petition is, whether the jurisdiction invoked by the opposite party after coming into force of the amendment, has got to cover a period of limitation up to "five years" preceding next the date of issuance of the impugned notice or the limitation as prescribed in the amended provision is prospective in nature and it would apply only to reassessments onwards from the date of coming into force of the amendment?2. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-16-2010
1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 and the Rules framed thereunder urging various facts and legal grounds.2. Brief facts in nutshell are stated as under: The petitioner in each of the writ petitions is accused of offence punishable under section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Originally each one of the petitioners case was pending either in the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance at Bhubaneswar or Cuttack or other places in the State. After establishment of the Special Courts pursuant to the notification issued by the State Government establishing Special Courts, the case of the petitioners were transferred to the respective Special Judge of the Special Courts established under the Orissa Special Courts Act.3. The Orissa Special Courts Act has been passed by the Orissa Legislative Assembly and the same has been assented to by the President of India on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-06-2010
1. The facts and law involved in all the writ petitions being the same, albeit IMFA and NALCO raised some extra points of facts and laws, they are heard analogously and the following common judgment is passed thereon. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners, all of whom generate energy for their own consumption, challenge the vires of the Orissa Electricity Duty Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in so far as Sections 2, 3 and 5 thereof are concerned. They also challenge the notification No.7721-P-II-Ed.15/92 E wherein Electricity Duty was fixed @ 12 paise for a person not being licencee or board who generate such energy for his own use or consumption. They further challenged the Notification No.GRIDCO-ED- 3/2001-18237, dated 10.10.2001 issued by State Government in their Department of Energy, wherein electricity duty was increased from 0.12 paise to 0.20 paise per unit. According to the petitioners, the impugned impost is expressly on generation/production of electric...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-16-2010
1. These petitions have been filed by the owners of the land acquired by the State Government in favor of the opposite party Anil Agarwal Foundation (hereinafter in short called as Foundation') for establishment of a University in exercise of its eminent domain power under the provisions of Part-VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the L.A. Act' in short). The public interest litigation petitions have been filed both on behalf of the land owners who have no access to justice and also on behalf of the public of the locality of the lands whose public interest is affected by violating Rule of Law in acquiring vast tract of both Government, Temple and private lands in favour of the Foundation. They were listed and heard together by consent of the learned counsel for the parties and are disposed of by this common judgment. With a view to avoid repetition of pleadings and rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, we would briefly state the necessary fact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-11-2010
Reported in : 2010(I)OLR963
Sunju Panda, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.8.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore in Civil Suit No. 80 of 2007-I partly allowing an application for amendment and partly rejecting an application for incorporating paragraphs 2 to 6 of the proposed amendment filed by the petitioner.2. To appreciate the contentions of the parties, the following facts of the case are necessary to be stated.The petitioner as plaintiff filed C.S. No. 80 of 2007-I before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore for declaration of right, title, interest, injunction and possession in respect of the suit schedule lands appertaining to Plot No. 873 measuring Ac.2.45 decimals and Plot No. 872 measuring Ac.0.06 decimals, in total Ac.2.47 decimals under Consolidation Khata No. 355/23 in Mouza-Silada. As per the settlement record, the said lands belonged to opposite party Nos. 5 to 6, who sold the same to the petitioner on payme...
Tag this Judgment!