Orissa High Court
The High Court Bar Association Odisha vs State Of Odisha And Others on 17 February, 2017
Equivalent citations: AIR 2017 ORISSA 62
Author: Vineet Saran
Bench: Vineet Saran
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 2711 of 2017 &
Misc. Case No.2356 of 2017
AND
W.P.(C) No.2712 of 2017 &
Misc. Case No.2307 of 2017
In the matter of applications under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
----------
The High Court Bar Association, Odisha
[In W.P.(C) No.2711 of 2017]
Shivsankar Mohanty
[In W.P.(C) No.2712 of 2017] ... Petitioners
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others
[In W.P.(C) No.2711 of 2017]
The Registrar (Judicial),
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
and others
[In W.P.(C) No.2712 of 2017] ... Opp. Parties
For petitioners : Mr. Ashok Mohanty,
Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Ashok Parija,
Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Karunakar Das,
Mr. A.A. Das, Mr. K.P. Mishra
and Mr. S.P. Sarangi
[In W.P.(C) No.2711 of 2017]
2
Mr. Shivsankar Mohanty
(In person)
[In W.P.(C) No.2712 of 2017]
For opp. parties : Mr. R.K. Mohapatra,
Government Advocate
(For opp. parties 1, 2 & 17)
[In W.P.(C) No.2711 of 2017]
Mr. R.K. Mohapatra,
Government Advocate
(For opp. parties 1 to 5)
[In W.P.(C) No.2712 of 2017]
----------
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VINEET SARAN
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI
Decided on : 17.2.2017
VINEET SARAN, C.J. These two writ petitions have been filed
with regard to an incident which is alleged to be
occurred in the premises of the High Court on
07.02.2017.
2. The first writ petition is filed by the High Court Bar Association, Odisha, on behalf of the lawyers of Orissa High Court praying that a Judicial Commission be constituted to enquire into the alleged 3 incident which had occurred on 07.02.2017 and also for issue of a direction to the Press as well as Electronic Media not to publish or telecast colourable, exaggerated, unverified and unnecessary news on the issue involved in the matter, as it will not only worsen the situation, but completely tarnish and damage the reputation of the institution.
3. The second writ petition has been filed by a practicing advocate of Orissa High Court with similar prayers. For the present, the prayer which is pressed by the petitioners is for an interim direction to the Print and Electronic Media not to publish any news with regard to the alleged incident, as the same is tarnishing the image of the High Court as an institution, and lawyers in general.
4. We shall treat the writ petition No. 2711 of 2017 as the leading petition. In the said writ petition, the State of Odisha; Director General and Inspector General of Police; and the informant of the incident; are arrayed as opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Various Print and Electronic Media 4 Publishers/Channels have also been arrayed as opposite parties no. 4 to 16. The Registrar General of Orissa High Court has been arrayed as proforma opposite party no.17.
5. We have heard Sri Ashok Mohanty and Sri Ashok Parija, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri Asim Amitav Das, Sri K.P.Mishra and Sri Karunakar Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the first writ petition; as well as Sri Shivshankar Mohanty- petitioner, a practicing advocate, in the second writ petition. We have also heard Sri R.K.Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-opposite parties. Sri S.P.Mishra, learned Advocate General, was also requested to address the Court on the issues involved in these writ petitions.
6. The case of the petitioner in the first writ petition is that the petitioner is a Registered Society consisting of practicing lawyers of the High Court of Orissa, which has filed this writ petition on behalf of the lawyers' community as a whole. The facts, as 5 borne out from the record, are that on 7.2.2017, opposite party no.3 (hereinafter referred to as 'informant') who is an Inspector of Police, working in CID, Crime Branch, had visited the High Court for some official work and that while she was coming down from the Lift No.5 in the premises of the High Court, it is alleged by the informant that certain advocates had misbehaved with her by leaning against her body. It is stated that the said incident was reported by the informant to the Superintendent of Police, CID, Crime Branch, who in turn vide letter dated 08.02.2017 intimated the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cuttack to take necessary legal action on the grievance petition of opposite party no.3, on the basis of which First Information Report was registered on 9.2.2017, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In the petition, it is stated that even before the First Information Report could be registered, there was a press report in the daily Oriya newspaper "Sambad" on 8.2.2017 with the headline (as translated in 6 English) as "Even the Lady Police Inspector was not spared". In the body of the said article, it was mentioned that certain persons in the Lift No.5 of the High Court premises had misbehaved with the informant.
7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Ashok Mohanty has submitted that not only the above report had been published in the newspaper on 08.02.2017 even prior to any case being registered, on 9.2.2017 in the same newspaper, there was another article with the heading (as translated in English) as "Alleged misbehavior to Lady Inspector- Direction for investigation". Learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that then on 10.2.2017, the English daily "Times of India" carried an article with the heading "Lady Inspector harassed" in which it was reported that two Government lawyers had allegedly misbehaved and harassed the Lady Inspector in the premises of the Orissa High Court. It has been pointed that another Odiya newspaper "Pramaya" also carried an article with the heading (as translated 7 in English) as "Misbehaviour to the Lady Police Employee- FIR against three Government advocates". On the same day, the English daily newspaper "Indian Express" carried an article with the heading "Case against the lawyers for outraging the modesty of lady cop".
8. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in the said articles, the version of the police and the informant has been given, without verifying the authenticity or correctness of such version, which could have been done so by viewing the CCTV footage of the entire incident, a copy of which had already been handed over by the High Court Registry to the Police Department, which is a matter of record. It is further contended that the Electronic Media also carried similar news, because of which the reputation of the lawyers community as a whole, as well as the Judiciary in particular, has been tarnished as the entire incident is said to be have been projected as if the lawyer community is in the habit of misbehaving 8 and scandalizing with the female visitors in the campus of the High Court. The contention is that without verifying the correctness and truthfulness of the incident published in the daily newspapers in an irresponsible manner amounts to defamation. By publishing such libelous statement, which has been circulated widely, it affects the reputation of the temple of justice, i.e., High Court, as well as lawyers as a class. Such publication imputing an association or collection of person jointly may amount to defamation.
9. Sri Ashok Mohanty and Sri Ashok Parija, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court Bar Association, have submitted that by such reporting of the incident in the Print as well as Electronic Media, the reputation of the lawyers community as a whole, and the High Court as an Institution, has been brought down and tarnished because it is projected by the Media as if lawyers cannot be controlled and they harass the female visitors. It is contended that by giving such 9 unauthenticated news items/reporting, the entire incident has been scandalized to the detriment of the reputation of the lawyers community and in case such reporting is not stopped by an interim direction of this Court, the reporting by the Print and Electronic Media would bring down the reputation of the institution as a whole and the public at large will lose faith in the High Court, which is the highest body of the State Judiciary and regarded as temple of justice. Learned counsel have also contended that Right to Privacy and Right to Fair Trial is a fundamental right, flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and such reckless and the irresponsible reporting by the Media would prejudice the mind of the public, as well as the authorities concerned, against the lawyers, and would thus, also amount to interference with the administration of justice and the right of the concerned lawyers for fair trial. Thus, it is urged that this Court may restrain the Print and Electronic Media from reporting the involvement of the lawyers of this Court in the said 10 incident, till the truth finally comes out after investigation and trial.
10. Sri R.K.Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties, on having received instructions from the State- authorities for which time was granted on 14.02.2017 and 15.02.2017, has submitted that the Government does not propose to impose any restriction on the reporting the incident by the Press, but leaves it to the Court to pass suitable orders, after considering the facts of the case. He has however stated that with regard to appointment of any Judicial Commission, the State-opposite parties would require time to file counter affidavit. He has produced the case diary for perusal of the Court.
11. Sri R.K. Mohapatra then proceeded to submit as an officer of the Court and not as a counsel for the Government. In this capacity, he has contended that though freedom of press is very dear and precious to him, but the same cannot be considered as an absolute right of the press, which is 11 always subject to reasonable restrictions. Sri Mohapatra states that, as an officer of the Court, he would support truthful reporting by the Print and Electronic Media but not colourable reporting to create sensation. He has however contended that in the present case, reporting of the incident in question, as has been made by the Print and Electronic Media, tarnishes the image of the lawyers community as a whole, and such reporting has been done without verifying the correctness of the facts and merely on the basis of the version given by the police authorities or the informant. He has submitted that he is deeply concerned with the reputation of the lawyers in general and the institution in particular and if such kind of reporting is permitted, then (as the incident had occurred in the premises of the High Court) the reputation of the institution would also be brought down and damaged. His submission is that if the Press exceeds its jurisdiction and puts the Institutional reputation in jeopardy, then it is the duty of the Court to intervene and issue necessary 12 directions to restrain such kind of reporting. As regards maintainability of these writ petitions, Sri Mohapatra has submitted that these writ petitions, filed by the High Court Bar Association and by a practicing advocate of this Court, would be maintainable because the incident is said to have taken place within the premises of the Court, and the Bar Association being a registered body of the lawyers, would have every right to raise such an issue before this Court when the reputation of the lawyers, and the High Court as an institution, is at stake.
12. Sri S.P. Mishra, learned Advocate General submitted that the Court has the power to restrain the Press in certain matters where the Press is not reporting the matter correctly because of which the reputation of the lawyers and Judiciary is brought down, and is also likely to interfere in the administration of justice, as the matter is still pending investigation, as well as consideration by the trial court. He has contended that by such reporting of the Press and Electronic Media (as has been done 13 in the present case), the public at large gets a biased opinion of the incident as in the present times, the Print and Electronic Media plays a very vital role in building an opinion regarding any case or incident, which can influence the investigation, as well as the trial.
13. Sri Shivsankar Mohanty-petitioner, who is also a practicing advocate of this Court, has adopted the submission of Sri Ashok Mohanty and Sri Ashok Parija, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the connected writ petition. He has further submitted that the reporting by the Print and Electronic Media, as has been done with regard to the incident relating the present case, has been irresponsible, which tarnishes the image of the lawyers in general, as also the High Court as an institution. He contends that being associated with the lawyers body and the institution, he is deeply concerned with the reputation of all lawyers, which is brought down because of incorrect reporting in the 14 Press, which affects each and every advocate of this High Court.
14. Learned counsel for the parties have relied on certain decisions of the apex Court as well as High Court, which shall be dealt with while considering their submission.
15. From the record, what we find is that the informant has alleged that an incident had taken place on 7.2.2017 between 11.00 and 11.30 A.M. in Lift No.5 in the High Court premises. It is alleged that certain lawyers had misbehaved with her. It is a matter of record that the CCTV footage of the entire incident is with the High Court and copy of such recording has also been handed over to the police after the lodging of the FIR dated 09.02.2017. It has also been brought on record that the CCTV footage was viewed by the learned Advocate General, President of the Bar Association, Senior Police Officials and Investigating Officer. Although there are averments made in the petition that a Senior Police Official had, after viewing the CCTV footage, opined 15 that there was nothing incriminating found in the said CCTV footage, but we would not like to comment on the same, as the same was contradicted by the Police Officers Association immediately thereafter, and also because the matter is under investigation and subjudice before the appropriate Court. Commenting on a matter which is subjudice at this stage would be neither justified for us nor for the Press, as the same would amount to pre-judging the issue.
16. It cannot be denied that lawyers are as much part of the Judiciary as an institution, as the Judges are. If the reputation of lawyers is affected, then, the reputation of the Judiciary also gets affected. It cannot be said that the reputation of the judiciary would be tarnished only when some adverse opinion or charges are leveled against the Judges alone. As such, if the allegations, without being verified, are made against the lawyers, it would definitely bringing down the reputation of the Institution as a whole and also of the lawyers, as a 16 community. We say so as lawyers are officers of the Court and the Court cannot function without the assistance of the lawyers. Thus, we are of the firm opinion that if the reputation of the lawyers community is at stake, it would definitely amount to the reputation of the Judiciary as a whole being at stake.
17. Lord Denning, M.R. in his book 'Road to Justice' states:-
"The Press plays a vital role in the administration of justice. It is the watchdog to see that every trial is conducted fairly, openly and above board. But the watchdog may sometimes break loose and have to be punished for misbehaviour".
Press occupies a vital place in modern society. Any institution when misused is bound to do more harm than good. Judiciary is the bed rock and handmaid of democracy. If people would lose faith in justice imparted by a Court of law, the entire democratic set up would crumble down.
17
18. The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. The press does not have the right, which is its professional function, to criticise and to advocate. The whole gamut of public affairs is the domain for fearless and critical comment, and not least the administration of justice. But the public function, which belongs to the press, makes it an obligation of honour to exercise this function only with the fullest sense of responsibility. Without such a lively sense of responsibility, a free press may readily become a powerful instrument of injustice. It should not, and may not, attempt to influence judges before they have made up their minds on pending controversies.
18
19. Freedom of Press is certainly very precious and sacrosanct, but such freedom does not mean absolute freedom and it certainly comes with restraints. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India provides for freedom of speech and expression, which would cover the freedom of Press also. But the same is with certain restrictions as provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, which have been dealt with in various decisions of the Apex Court.
20. As back as in the year 1982, the Apex Court, in S.P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, while dealing with the case relating to appointment and transfer of Judges, where there had been inappropriate reporting by the Press regarding that case, held that "such behaviour of a section of the Press has been most distressing and has unnecessarily affected the image of Judiciary and the high constitutional functionaries involved." The Courts have always been of the opinion that reporting by the Press relating to any pending case should not be in such manner so as to affect the reputation of any 19 institution or cause interference in the Administration of Justice.
21. In Re: Harijai Singh and another and In Re: Vijay Kumar, AIR 1997 SC 73, the apex Court while dealing with freedom of press, held as follows:
"A free and healthy press is indispensable to the functioning of the true democracy. In a democratic set-up, there has to be an active and intelligent participation of the people in all spheres and affairs of their community as well as the State. It is their right to be kept informed about current political, social, economic and cultural life as well as the burning topics and important issues of the day, in order to enable them to consider and form broad opinion about the same and the way in which they are being managed, tackled and administered by the Government and its functionaries. The primary function of the press is to provide comprehensive and objective information of all aspects of the country's political, social, economic and cultural life. It has an educative and mobilising role to play. It plays an important role in moulding public opinion and can be an instrument of social change. The press should have the right to present anything which it thinks fit for publication. But freedom of press 20 is not absolute, unlimited and unfettered at all times and in all circumstances as giving an unrestricted freedom of the speech and expression would amount to an uncontrolled licence. If it were wholly free even from reasonable restraints, it would lead to disorder and anarchy. The freedom is not to be mis-understood as to be a press free to disregard its duty to be responsible. In an organized society, the rights of the press free to disregard its duty to be responsible. In an organized society, the rights of the press have to be recognized with its duties and responsibilities towards the society. Public order, decency, morality and such other things must be safeguarded. The editor of a newspaper or a journal has a greater responsibility to guard against untruthful news and publications for the simple reason that his utterance has a far greater circulation and impact than utterance of an individual and by reason of their appearing in print, they are likely to be believed by the ignorant. It is the duty of a true and responsible journalist to strive to inform the people with accurate and impartial presentation of news and their views. (Emphasis supplied)
22. In M.P. Lohia, v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2005 SC 790, the same view was reiterated by 21 the apex Court. In the said case, even though trial in the criminal case was going on, which related to the death of a lady, the Press had reported in favour of the deceased and projected as if she was a victim of dowry in article titled "Doomed by Dowry", which was done so based on an interview of the family of the deceased and giving the version extensively quoting the father of the deceased as to his version of the case. In paragraph-10 of the said judgment, the Apex Court held as under:
"The facts narrated therein are all materials that may be used in the forthcoming trial in this case and we have no hesitation that this type of articles appearing in the media would certainly interfere with the administration of justice. We deprecate this practice and caution the publisher, editor and the journalist who were responsible for the said article against in such trial by media when the issue is subjudiced."
23. Similar view was again taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi), AIR 2010 22 SC 2352. In paragraphs-148 and 152 of the said judgment, the Apex Court observed as under:
"148. Despite the significance of the print and electronic media in the present day, it is not only desirable but least that is expected of the persons at the helm of affairs in the field, to ensure that trial by media does not hamper fair investigation by the investigating agency and more importantly does not prejudice the right of defence of the accused in any manner whatsoever. It will amount to travesty of justice if either of this causes impediments in the accepted judicious and fair investigation and trial.
152. In the present case, various articles in the print media had appeared even during the pendency of the matter before the High Court which again gave rise to unnecessary controversies and apparently, had an effect of interfering with the administration of criminal justice. We would certainly caution all modes of media to extend their co-operation to ensure fair investigation, trial, defence of accused and non-interference in the administration of justice in matters subjudice."23
24. In Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, AIR 2012 SC 3829, a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court was dealing with the question whether appropriate orders could be passed by the Court with regard to reporting of matters, which are subjudice and as to whether guidelines for media could be laid down or not.
25. While dealing with the Indian approach to prior restraints of the press, after placing reliance on Nine Judges decision of the Apex Court in the case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1, the Supreme Court in paragraph-32 of the said judgment has held as under:
"32. Thus, the principle of open justice is not absolute. There can be exceptions in the interest of administration of justice. In Mirajkar, the High Court ordered that the deposition of the defence witness should not be reported in the newspapers. This order of the High Court was challenged in this Court under Article 32. This Court held that apart from Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court had the inherent 24 power to restrain the press from reporting where administration of justice so demanded. This Court held vide para 30 that evidence of the witness need not receive excessive publicity as fear of such publicity may prevent the witness from speaking the truth. That, such orders prohibiting publication for a temporary period during the course of trial are permissible under the inherent powers of the court whenever the court is satisfied that interest of justice so requires. As to whether such a temporary prohibition of publication of court proceedings in the media under the inherent powers of the court can be said to offend Article 19(1)(a) rights [which includes freedom of the press to make such publication], this Court held that an order of a court passed to protect the interest of justice and the administration of justice could not be treated as violative of Article 19(1)(a) [see para 12]. The judgment of this Court in Mirajkar is delivered by a Bench of 9-Judges and is binding on this Court."
26. In paragraph-33 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has further held as under:
"...........However, in Mirajkar, this Court held that all Courts which have inherent powers, i.e., the Supreme Court, the High Courts and Civil Courts can issue prior 25 restraint orders or proceedings, prohibitory orders in exceptional circumstances temporarily prohibiting publications of Court proceedings to be made in the media and that such powers do not violate Article 19(1)(a)."
27. The Apex Court has always been, and more particularly in the aforesaid Sahara's case (supra), concerned with the trial by media and in the said Sahara's case it has been observed that-
"Trial by newspaper comes in the category of acts which interferes with the course of justice or due administration of justice".
It further goes on to hold that-
"the courts have evolved mechanisms such as postponement of publicity to balance presumption of innocence, which is now recognized as a human right in Ranjitsing Brahajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294".
The Apex Court thus held that the order of postponement of publication can be passed, if so 26 warranted. In paragraph-40 of the said judgment it observed as under:
"In our view, orders of postponement of publications/publicity in appropriate cases, as indicated above, keeping in mind the timing (the stage at which it should be ordered), its duration and the right of appeal to challenge such orders is just a neutralizing devidce, when no other alternative such as change of venue or postponement of trial is available, evolved by courts as a preventive measure to protect the press from getting prosecuted for contempt and also to prevent administration of justice from getting perverted or prejudiced."
28. Then in the conclusion, while considering the right to approach the High Court/Supreme Court in this regard, in paragraph-43, it has been held as under:
"43. In the light of the law enunciated hereinabove, anyone, be he an accused or an aggrieved person, who genuinely apprehends on the basis of the content of the publication and its effect, an infringement of his/her rights under Article 21 to a fair trial and all that it comprehends, would be entitled to approach an appropriate writ court 27 and seek an order of postponement of the offending publication/broadcast or postponement of reporting of certain phases of the trial (including identity of the victim or the witness or the complainant), and that the court may grant such preventive relief, on a balancing of the right to a fair trial and Article 19(1)(a) rights, bearing in mind the abovementioned principles of necessity and proportionality and keeping in mind that such orders of postponement should be for short duration and should be applied only in cases of real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice or to the fairness of trial. Such neutralizing device (balancing test) would not be an unreasonable restriction and on the contrary would fall within the proper constitutional framework."
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the firm view that in a case where, by exaggerated or incorrect reporting of an incident by the Print or Electronic Media, either the administration justice is affected or the reputation of an institution or any class of person(s) is affected, this Court is not only be obliged, but is duty bound to interfere and issue 28 necessary directions so as to save the reputation of any such institution, or class of persons, which is affected.
30. A similar case came up before the Delhi High Court wherein by irresponsible reporting by the Press, reputation of a retired Judge of the Supreme Court was affected. The Delhi High Court in the said case of Swatanter Kumar v. The Indian Express, (2014)1 High Court Cases (Del) 572, relying on the judgment in the Sahara's case (supra) and other earlier judgments of the Apex Court, issued directions to the defendants therein [which included the Print and Electronic Media and any other person(s)] restraining them from publication of matters relating to the incident involved in that case.
31. In the present case, on the facts as have been stated herein above, and on the basis of the nature of the reports in the Print and Electronic Media and the averments made in the writ petition with regard to reporting by the Media, we are of the opinion that the facts warrant immediate interference 29 by this Court by issuing necessary interim directions to the opposite parties and other persons from reporting the incident which is alleged to have taken place in the premises of this High Court on 07.02.2017.
32. Accordingly, the opposite parties 4 to 16, their agents, assigns or any of them acting on their behalf/any other person(s) involved in Print or Electronic Media or Internet are restrained from further publishing or highlighting the allegations against the lawyers as a whole, or the Advocates against whom allegations have been made in the complaint, or the informant, or the High Court as an institution, in any form without disclosing in the headlines of the article that they are mere allegations against such party in their write up or telecast. The said opp. parties are further restrained from publishing and telecasting the names and photographs of the accused persons or the informant, which may suggest the actions of the advocates 30 relating to the said allegations made by the informant.
33. The interim directions, as mentioned above, are for postponement of publication which shall remain in force till the next date of hearing and are temporary in nature as per the Sahara's case (supra) and shall be subject to further monitoring by this Court from time to time.
34. The observations made in this order are prima facie in nature, and will not preclude the opposite parties to report the Court cases and happenings of facts which are covered within the ambit of fair reporting on the basis of true, correct and verified information.
35. In W.P.(C) No.2711 of 2017, the opposite parties 1, 2 and 17 are already represented through the learned Government Advocate. Steps to serve opposite parties 3 to 16 be taken by Speed Post with A.D. by 22.02.2017. Office shall send notice to the said opposite parties fixing 15.03.2017. 31
36. In W.P.(C) No.2712 of 2017, the learned Government Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 5. Steps to serve opposite party no.6 (earlier opposite party no.7) by speed post with A.D. be taken by 22.02.2017. Office shall send notice to the said opposite party fixing 15.03.2017.
37. List on 15.03.2017. By which date, all the opposite parties in both the writ petitions may file their respective counter affidavits.
A free copy of this order be given to the learned Government Advocate.
...........................
(VINEET SARAN) CHIEF JUSTICE ..............................
(DR. B.R.SARANGI) JUDGE Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 17th February, 2017/PCP/DM/DA/GDS/AKJ