Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Bichitrananda Behera vs State Of Orissa on 4 September, 2018
ITEM NO.25 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XI-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. KAPIL MEHTA
IA 117294/2018, in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No(s). 16238/2017
BICHITRANANDA BEHERA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF ORISSA Respondent(s)
Date : 04-09-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today.
For Petitioner(s)
Mr Soumyajit Pani, Adv.
Mr Chittaranjan Singh, Adv.
Mr. Vinodh Kanna B., AOR
For Respondent(s)
Ms Manjula Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Prem Sunder Jha, AOR
Ms Himanshi Andley, Adv.
Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, AOR
Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Vide order dated 8.5.2018 submission of the ld. Counsel for the petitioner, to treat service on respondent no.4 as deemed complete as service on respondent no.3 is complete, was rejected on account of having separate entities.
However, in IA it has been mentioned that Managing Signature Not Verified Committee is not in existence and Inspector of School is in Digitally signed by HEMA JOSHI Date: 2018.09.06 15:57:35 IST Reason: charge of Management of the School in question and in support of this “Annexure A-2” has been filed and the contention of the -2- Item No.25 application is that vide order dt.23.7.1999, Orissa High Court Bench at Cuttack has quashed the concerned office order approving the Managing Committee of School and directed the Inspector of School to remain In-Charge of School till new Management Committee is constituted.
Perused.
Keeping in view the submission made by the ld. Counsel for the petitioner and as stated in Annexure A-2 and impugned order dated 18.1.2017 of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa Bench at Cuttack, Inspector of School is in-charge of the School as of now also, as such, respondent nos. 3 and 4 are not separate entities and therefore, service on respondent no.4 is deemed complete since service on respondent no.3 is already complete. IA No.117294 is ordered accordingly.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has neither taken fresh steps for effecting service on respondent nos. 7 and 8 nor filed IA for deletion. However, ld. Counsel for the petitioner has filed a letter requesting dasti service to be effected on respondent nos. 7 and 8. Dasti is permitted. Proof of service be filed within four weeks time.
List again on 10.10.2018.
KAPIL MEHTA Registrar 04.09.2018 hj