Court : Orissa
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.8.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in Misc. Case No.15 of 1982 under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short, "the Code") arising out of Misc. Appeal No.42 of 1982, an appeal under the Orissa Pubic Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (in short, "the OPP Act").2. The facts, as narrated in the writ petition, are as follows: Opposite party no.1 as respondent no.2 in Misc. Appeal No.42 of 1981 filed an application under Section 151 of the Code for setting aside the ex parte judgment dated 10.9.1981 passed in the said appeal and prayed for hearing of the appeal as he would be highly prejudiced.From the record, it appears that the disputed land was acquired by the State Government under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of construction of quarters for the staff and officers of the High Court of Orissa. After due notification under Sections 6 and 9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. The petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Mayabarha in the district of Sonepur. Apart from the petitioner, there were three other candidates to contest the election to be the office of the Sarpanch of the said Grama Panchayat. After declaration of the result of the election, the opp. party no. 2 filed an application under Section 31 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rampur challenging the election of the petitioner on the main ground that he had more than two children born after the cut off date. The said election petition was registered as MJC No. 10 of 2007. The petitioner after appearing in the said election dispute has filed a show cause/written statement. In paragraph-4 of the written statement, the petitioner denied the allegation with regard to the dates of birth of his children stating the same to be incorrect and false. On 26.6.2010, the opp. party no. 2 (election petitioner) filed an alleged extract of the immunization regi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
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
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment dated 27.3.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Dhenkanal in F.A.O.No.33 of 2007 reversing the judgment passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division,) Dhenkanal, in Election Petition No.11 of 2007 and declaring the election of the petitioner to the office of Sarpanch of Badalo Grama Panchayat as null and void and further declaring that a casual vacancy has been occurred in respect of the said office of Sarpanch and directing the concerned authority to take necessary steps to fill up the vacancy as per law.2. The petitioner and three others, namely, Alakamanjari Rout, Mamatamayee Sahu and Srimati Rout filed their respective nominations to contest for the office of Sarpanch of Badalo Gram Panchayat, which was scheduled to be held on 15.2.2007.On scrutiny of the nomination papers, all the four candidates were found suitable to contest for the election. Accordingly, they contested the election which was held on the scheduled ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
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
1. The petitioner, one of the tenderers, has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to finalize the tender and execute necessary deed of agreement for issuance of work order in its favour in respect of Package Nos. 2 and 4 (Kansabansa RD 31.00 KM to 21.00 KM and Kansabansa 10.00 KM to 0.00 KM) respectively and for a declaration that in the event the opposite parties have executed agreement with any disqualified bidder, the same may be deemed to be illegal, inoperative and untenable with a further prayer to quash the same in respect of the aforesaid package nos. 2 and 4 urging various facts and legal contentions.2. After the filing of this writ petition, vide order dated 18.1.2010, the petitioner has impleaded opposite party nos.6 and 7 -2- in whose favour the contract has been awarded in respect of the aforesaid items of civil work. 3. Facts in brief are stated as under:Opposite party no.4 by e procurement notice No.5/08-09 fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
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
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
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
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment dated 25.03.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in Election Appeal No.5 of 2007 confirming the judgment dated 6.8.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jeypore, Koraput in Election Petition No.15 of 2007.2. As per the notification of the State Election Commissioner, election for member of Panchayat Samiti of Kusumi Gram Panchayat was scheduled to be held on 21.02.2007. The petitioner and two others contested for the office of Panchayat Samiti Member on the scheduled date and the writ petitioner own the election. Tripati Bisoi, one of the contestants filed Election Petition No.15 of 2007 before the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jeypore, Koraput challenging the election of the returned candidate on several grounds including the ground that the returned candidate was disqualified for becoming a member of Panchayat Samiti and continuing as such since he committed m...
Tag this Judgment!