Orissa High Court
Ranjit Mallick vs State Of Odisha & Others on 29 October, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18732 of 2014
Ranjit Mallick
.... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others
.... Opposite Parties
Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
29.10.2024 Order No.
11. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order dtd.26.07.2014 so passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee-Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-4. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to be engaged through a counsel was rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner placing reliance on the decision in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Others reported in AIR 1995 SC-94 contended that Hon'ble Apex Court while streamlining the procedure for issuance of a social status certificate, their // 2 // scrutiny and approval issued certain guidelines. In Para- 6 of the guideline, it was clearly indicated that the alleged person be given an opportunity either in person or through counsel. Para-6 of the guideline read as follows:-
"From the counter-affidavit filed by the State which has not been disputed by filing any rejoinder and as is borne out from the public notification issued by the President in the year 1950 in exercise of the power under Article 342 read with Article 366(25) of the Constitution that Mahadeo Koli is declared as a Scheduled Tribe. Article 366(25) defines Scheduled Tribes, as meaning such tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are declared under Article 342 to be Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of the Constitution. Article 342 gives power to the President to specify the tribe with respect to any State or Union Territory, after consultation with the Governor where it is a State, by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall, for the purposes of the Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory, as the case may be".
4.1. It is contended that in view of such direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court so rendered in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil, rejection of the Petitioner's claim to engage a counsel to represent him before the Committee vide the impugned order dtd.26.07.2024 is not sustainable in the eye of law.
4.2. It is also contended that because of the interim order passed by this Court on 30.09.2014, no further progress has been made to the enquiry in question.
5. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State basing on the stand taken in the Page 2 of 4 // 3 // counter affidavit though supported the impugned order but contended that appropriate order can be passed in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil as cited (supra).
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case has issued the guideline to the effect that opportunity be given to alleged person to represent him either in person or through a counsel.
6.1. In view of such direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court so reflected in Para-6 of the guideline, this Court is of the view that the claim of the Petitioner to engage a counsel has been wrongly rejected vide the impugned order dtd.26.07.2014.
6.2. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.26.07.2014 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-4. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to allow the Petitioner to be represented through a counsel and to place his case in terms of the decision in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil as cited (supra). Since the proceeding has been stayed by this Court since 30.09.2014, Petitioner is directed to provide a copy of this order before Opposite Party No.2 within a period of seven (7) days from the date of receipt of this order. Opposite Party No.2 is directed to Page 3 of 4 // 4 // conclude the proceeding in accordance with law and by following the decision in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of this order. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State is also directed to intimate the Committee about the order passed by this Court today.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 11-Nov-2024 17:24:46 Page 4 of 4