Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Prasanna Kumar Sahu vs State Of Odisha And Others on 13 December, 2023

Bench: B.R. Sarangi, Murahari Sri Raman

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                W.A. No. 666 of 2023
                                        And
                             W.A. No. 667 and 650 of 2023

W.A. No. 666 of 2023
Prasanna Kumar Sahu                     .....                                Appellant
                                                                  Mr. S.K. Das, Adv.

                                        Vs.
State of Odisha and others              .....                             Respondents
                                                                  Mr. D.N. Rath, Adv.

W.A. No. 667 of 2023
Prasanna Kumar Sahu                     .....                                Appellant
                                                                  Mr. S.K. Das, Adv.

                                        Vs.
State of Odisha and others              .....                             Respondents
                                                                  Mr. D.N. Rath, Adv.

W.A. No. 650 of 2023
Prasanna Kumar Sahu                     .....                                Appellant
                                                                  Mr. S.K. Das, Adv.

                                        Vs.
State of Odisha and others              .....                             Respondents
                                                                  Mr. D.N. Rath, Adv.

              CORAM:
                  ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI
                  MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

                                               ORDER

12.01.2024 Order No. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

04.

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in all the writ appeals and Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 in all the appeals.

3. This Court has not issued notice to the respondents. But, respondent no.4 has entered appearance through Mr. D.N. Rath and associates, who raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ appeals. Vide order dated 13.12.2023, this Court called upon learned counsel appearing for the parties to Page 1 of 3 verify as to whether the writ appeals are maintainable or not and address the Court on the next occasion

4. Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the writ appeals are maintainable as because the same are arising out of a common judgment passed in two FAOs and one writ petition. Since the judgment has been passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ appeals are maintainable. It is further contended that against the order passed in FAO No.203 of 2019, Writ Appeal No.666 of 2023 has been filed, whereas W.A. No.650 of 2023 has been filed against the order passed in FAO No. 202 of 2019 and W.A. No. 667 of 2023 has been filed against the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 31932 of 2022. To substantiate his contention, he has placed reliance on the order of this Court in the case of Arabinda Panda v. The Director, Higher Education Odisha and others (W.A. No. 143 of 2016 disposed of on 29.09.2021, wherein relying upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mahammed Saud v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz, 2008 (II) OLR (FB) 725, this Court held that the writ appeal is maintainable.

5. Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 contended that the writ appeals are not maintainable in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Shradhakar Mohanty v. Management of Cuttack Municipal Corporation (W.A. No. 122 of 2013 disposed of on 01.11.2023), where reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rabindranath @ Rabindranath Jena v. Bijay Kumar Bhuyan, 2016 (II) ILR CUT 28; and judgments of the apex Court in the cases of Jogendrasinghji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujrat, (2015) 9 SCC 1; Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423. It is contended that similar view has also been taken by this Court in Smt. Swarnaprava pattnaik @ Das v. Dibakara Satapathy (Dead) through L.Rs Lilly Satapathy @ Page 2 of 3 Panda and others (Writ Appeal No. 346 of 2012 dismissed on 08.12.2016) and in Jyotshna Mohapatra v. State of Odisha, 2018 (I) ILR CUT 869. It is contended that since the cause of action arises from the selfsame issue with regard to approval of the post and the appellant approached the tribunal under Section 24-B of the Odisha Education Act and thereafter respondent no.4 preferred appeal under Section 24-C of the Act before this Court in the FAOs and writ petition, which was examined by the learned Single Judge and consequentially the judgment and order was passed, the writ appeals are not maintainable.

6. Hearing is concluded and order is reserved.

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Ashok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 16-Jan-2024 14:33:28 Page 3 of 3