Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of Orissa vs Santosh Kumar Hota on 17 January, 2014
X
ITEM NO.206 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).23644/2010
(From the judgement and order dated 05/02/2010 in WP No. 11247/2009 of The
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK)
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SANTOSH KUMAR HOTA Respondent(s)
(With prayer for interim relief)
[FOR FINAL DISPOSAL]
Date: 17/01/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Sivasubramanian, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Das, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
| |
|Leave granted. |
|Heard learned counsel for the parties. |
|The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. |
| |
|[KALYANI GUPTA] | |[SHARDA KAPOOR] |
|COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2014
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 23644 of 2010] | STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. |..... |APPELLANTS | | | |VERSUS | | SANTOSH KUMAR HOTA |..... |RESPONDENT | O R D E R Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The High Court while affirming the order dated 7th May, 2008 of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar Bench in O.A. NO. 1019 of 2004 has not given any reasons as would be clear from the impugned order dated 5th February, 2010 of the High Court extracted herein below:-
"We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 7.5. 2008 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar bench, in O.A. No. 1019/2004 to be interfered with in this application.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed."
4. In our considered opinion, the High Court should have given reasons as to why it did not think that the order passed by the Tribunal should not be interfered with. This was necessary to enable this Court as an Appellate Court to examine whether the High Court was right in its conclusion.
5. Since no reasons have been given in the impugned order, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court for a fresh hearing and order in accordance with law.
6. We also request the High Court to dispose of the writ petition within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
.................................J [A.K. PATNAIK] ................................J [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA] NEW DELHI JANUARY 17, 2014.