Orissa High Court
Sibu Kanungo vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... Opp. ... on 28 July, 2023
Author: B.R.Sarangi
Bench: B.R.Sarangi
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
AFR
W.P(C) NO. 1754 OF 2023
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
---------------
Sibu Kanungo ..... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opp. Parties
For petitioner : Mr. Milan Kanungo,
Sr. Advocate along with
M/s. S.R. Mohanty and
D. Acharya, Advocates.
For opp. parties : Mr. P.P. Mohanty,
Addl. Government Advocate
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of Hearing: 25.07.2023:: Date of Judgment: 28.07.2023 DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. The petitioner, who is a contractor, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 12.01.2023 under Annexure-7, by which the Executive Engineer, Nayagrah (R&B) Division, Nayagarh, in pursuance of the approval of rescission of contract vide letter no.2198 dated Page 1 of 27 15.11.2022 of the Chief Construction Engineer, Khurdha (P&B) Circle, Khurdha, has rescinded the contract agreement no.223P1/2018-19 for the work "Improvement to Sadar Police Station to Khetribarpur Khandugaon RD road from 0/0 km to 2/430 km for the year 2017-18" as per Clause-2(i) of P1 agreement with levy of penalty @ 20% of the value of leftover work to be realized from the petitioner-contractor.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the Chief Construction Engineer, Khurdha (R&B) Circle, Khurdha-opposite party no-3 invited tender for the work "Improvement to Sadar Police Station to Khetribarpur Khandugaon RD Road of Ward No-6 from 0/0 to 2/430 km vide Bid Identification No.SE/Khurdha (R&B) Circle- 02/2018-19". Pursuant to such tender call notice, the petitioner participated in the bid and came out successful. Consequently, on 17.09.2018, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and opposite party no. 4, vide P1 Agreement No- 223-P1/2018-19.
Page 2 of 27 2.1 After execution of the agreement, the petitioner moved his men and machineries to start and complete the work as per the agreement, but, however, due to encroachments and forcible occupation of land by various persons, it was difficult on his part to conclude the work. Even though the petitioner made several requests, vide letters dated 03.12.2018, 12.02.2019 and 24.03.2019, but no action was taken by the opposite parties. Ultimately, opposite party no.4 informed the petitioner that they cannot evict the encroachments as General Election 2019 was around the corner and displacement of people would create hue and cry for the ruling government. Even though an obligation was cast on the opposite parties to give the land free of encroachment to undertake the work, they did not discharge their duties and responsibilities by providing encroachment free land to undertake the work. The opposite parties, on 25.01.2021, inspected the entire site and decided to double the width of the road, i.e., instead of single lane it was decided to make the road double lane and accordingly a revised estimate was prepared and finalised Page 3 of 27 on 24.11.2021. After finalisation of the revised estimate, opposite party no.4, vide letter no. 6629 dated 24.11.2021, submitted the revised estimate with deviation statement for the approval of the higher authority, i.e., opposite party no.3 and after duly scrutinizing the proposal, opposite party no.3, vide letter no. 417 dated 04.03.2022, approved the deviation and accordingly, returned the documents to opposite party no.4 for starting the double laning of the road. For revising the work and to give a go ahead to the petitioner, since the opposite parties took considerable time, the petitioner mobilised few of his resources to complete the work under other agreements in order to achieve his bid capacity. However, when the approval was accorded by opposite party no. 3, the petitioner immediately resumed the work basing on which, the running account was released in favour of the petitioner in the month of April, 2022 for the work done in the month of March, 2022. 2.2 The petitioner humbly continued the work till the onset of monsoon, but due to unprecedented rains, it was very difficult to execute the work as per the revised Page 4 of 27 estimate, as it was only earthwork and was carried out on the foothill of the mountain which was hampered by heavy water flow. After the rain subsided, when the petitioner moved his men and machineries for resumption of work at the site, he was verbally stopped by the Assistant Engineer from doing any work at the site. As a result of thereof, the petitioner made a grievance before opposite party no. 4 on 20.11.2022. While his grievance was pending, the petitioner received a letter dated 12.01.2023, whereby opposite party no. 4 has rescinded the agreement for the work "Improvement to Sadar Police Station to Khetribarpur Khandugaon RD road of ward no.6 from 0/0 km to 2/430 km vide Bid Identification No.SE/Khurdha (R&B) Cirlce- 02/2018-19" with a levy of penalty of 20% of the value of the leftover work. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Mr. Milan Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr. S.R. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned letter dated 12.01.2023 vide Annexure-7, which has been issued in rescinding the contract, is arbitrary, Page 5 of 27 unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law and violates the principles of natural justice as the petitioner has never been served with a notice to show cause and he has not been given opportunity of hearing before the order impugned was passed. He further contended that as per the agreement, which was executed on 17.09.2018, the work could not be executed, as the authorities proposed to revise the work. As such, the revised estimate was prepared and finalised on 04.03.2022 and, thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to start the work, as the scope of work was completely changed. He further contended that in one hand the opposite parties delayed the finalization and approval of revised work/estimate by three years and on the other hand in an arbitrary and most unfair manner rescinded the work granted in favour of the petitioner by attributing the delay to him in execution of the same. He, therefore, contended that the actions of the opposite parties are per se unfair, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, abridges the legitimate expectation and also infringes the statutory and fundamental rights of the petitioner as guaranteed under Page 6 of 27 Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, seeks for interference of this Court.
4. Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties, though admitted the factual matrix as stated above, contended that the petitioner failed to complete the work as per his commitment. Accordingly, the contract rescission proposal was initiated as per Clause-2(i) of the agreement and got approved by the competent authority. Therefore, after rescission of contract, on 20.03.2023, a fresh tender was issued by the Chief Construction Engineer, Khurda (R&B) Circle-opposite party no.3. Since the petitioner challenged the rescission of contract by filing the present writ petition, on 10.04.2023, the said fresh tender was cancelled by opposite party no.3. It is further contended that as the petitioner failed to start the work, for which Contract Management Meeting was held on 07.12.2018. In the said meeting, the petitioner had committed to start the work by 13.12.2018, but he did not comply with the same. As a consequence thereof, a show cause notice was issued vide Page 7 of 27 letter dated 02.02.2019. In spite of that, the petitioner did not start the work as per his commitment. Therefore, he was issued with show cause notices, vide letters no. 4916 dated 18.12.2019, no. 3113 dated 28.04.2020, no. 4185 dated 21.07.2020, no. 3617 dated 04.05.2021 and no. 4101 dated 07.07.2021. In spite of repeated show cause notices, the petitioner did not take any step to expedite the work to complete in all respect. He further contended that inspection was caused by the Chief Engineer (DPI & Roads) Odisha, Bhubneswar on 25.01.2021. The petitioner was instructed to improve the road with provision of double lane instead of single lane with scope of work within agreement amount. The Contract Management Meeting was held on 08.10.2021 in presence of the petitioner, being the agency, and other Engineer-in-Charge, where the petitioner committed to start the work by 16.10.2021 and to submit the revised work programme by 11.10.2021 prior to start of the work. Consequently, the revised estimate and deviation was approved by the Chief Construction Engineer, R&B Circle, vide letter No.417 dated 04.03.2022. Since the Page 8 of 27 petitioner did not execute the original quantity of work provided in the original estimate, the action was taken against him. It is further contended that the petitioner has been paid the running account bill time to time, as per execution of quantity provided in the original agreement and also the bill was paid to the petitioner for the work executed during March 2022. The petitioner did not execute the agreement quantity and was far behind the quantity provided in the estimate or revised quantity. He has executed the work for a total amount of Rs. 68,37,781.42 excluding GST (approximately 21% of agreement amount) up to March 2022. Thereafter, no work has been executed by the petitioner till rescission of contract. Therefore, the action taken by the authorities is well justified. Consequentially, dismissal of the writ petition is sought for.
5. This Court heard Mr. Milan Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr. S.R. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties in hybrid mode and perused the Page 9 of 27 records. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.
6. Before delving into the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, for a just and proper adjudication of the case, Clause-2(i) of the Conditions of Contract is quoted herein below:-
"(i) To rescind the contract (of which rescission notice in writing to the contractor under the hands of the Executive Engineer shall be conclusive evidence), 20% of the value of left-over work will be realised from the contractors penalty. (Works Deptt No. 10639, Pt. 27.05.2005) In the event of above course being adopted by the Executive Engineer the contractor shall have no claim to compensation for any loss sustained by him by reason of his having purchased or procured any materials, or entered into any engagements, or made any advances on account of or with a view to, the execution of the work or the performance of the contract. And in case the contract shall be rescinded under the provisions aforesaid, the contractor shall not be entitled to recover or be paid any sum of any work thereto for actually performed under this contract, unless and until the Executive Engineer shall have certified in writing the performance of such work and the value payable in respect thereof and he shall only be entitled to be paid the value so certified."Page 10 of 27
On perusal of the aforementioned clause, it is made clear that to rescind the contract (of which rescission notice in writing to the contractor under the hands of the Executive Engineer shall be conclusive evidence) 20% of the value of left-over work will be realised from the contractor as penalty. Therefore, for rescinding the contract, an obligation was cast on the Executive Engineer to give a rescission notice in writing. Thereby, a condition has been stipulated for giving prior notice to the contractor.
7. On careful examination of the documents available on record, there is no dispute that pursuant to the tender notice invited by the opposite parties, the petitioner participated and on being selected was allotted with the work. But, subsequently, the work in question was revised and instead of single laning road it was decided for double laning and, as such, the road was encroached by the unauthorised occupants, which the opposite parties were under obligation to provide free of encroachments. When this fact was brought to the notice of the opposite parties, instead of taking a call on the issue, responsibility was Page 11 of 27 shifted on the petitioner to evict such unauthorised occupants and undertake the work including revised work. Needless to say that the revised work was permitted to be done by the petitioner only vide letter dated 04.03.2022 by approving the deviation. Hence, the petitioner was to start the work, but due to heavy rain, it was not possible on his part to go with the work immediately. Unfortunately, an inquiry was conducted behind his back and on the basis of such inquiry, the order dated 12.01.2023 was passed by rescinding the contract. Much emphasis was laid by learned Addl. Government Advocate that petitioner was issued with four show cause notices of different dates as pleaded in paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit. But fact remains, those notices had been issued much prior to revision of work and, therefore, the same have no bearing to the present context, since the petitioner was allowed to do the revised work only in March, 2022 vide letter dated 04.03.2022. It has also been admitted that the petitioner has executed the work for a total amount of Rs.68,37,781.42 excluding GST (approximately 21% of Page 12 of 27 agreement amount) up to March, 2022. Beyond March 2022, no work has been executed by the petitioner till the order of rescission of contract was issued in January, 2023. Though reliance was placed on Contract Management Meeting held on 08.10.2021, where the petitioner committed to start the work by 16.10.2021, but after that the petitioner had executed the work amounting to Rs.26,65,146.00 excluding GST of the agreement amount during March, 2022. Therefore, when the petitioner is progressing with the work, on the plea of failure to achieve the target, a bald statement has been made to the effect to show that notices were issued to the petitioner giving opportunity to state his difficulty. But factually no such show cause notice was served on the petitioner and the contract rescission proposal was initiated as per Clause-2
(i) of the Conditions of the Contract, which got approved by the Chief Construction Engineer, by imposing levy of penalty of 20% on the petitioner. So far as contention raised and as pleaded in paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit, that several show cause notices were issued, those Page 13 of 27 show cause notices had been issued prior to 04.03.2022, when on a revised estimate the petitioner was to execute the work from single laning to double laning road. When the work was in progress, the step for rescission of contract was taken without complying with the principle of natural justice.
8. The petitioner has specifically pleaded in paragraphs-12 and 15 of the writ petition to the following effect:-
"12. That it is most respectfully submitted that the impugned letter under Annexure-7 has been issued in clear violation of the principles of natural justice as the Petitioner has never been served with a show cause notice and the Petitioner has not been heard before passing of the impugned order. This ground alone makes the order liable to be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court.
15. That the actions of the Opp. Parties are in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and oozes malafide. This shows the arbitrary nature with which the Petitioner has been dealt with and acted upon. Hence. the impugned order as under Anncxure-7 is liable to be quashed and set aside."
9. In the reply to the same, the State-opposite parties, in their counter affidavit, have stated in paragraphs-14 and 16 to the following effect:- Page 14 of 27
"14. That the averments made in paragraph No.12 of writ petition are disputed and denied. It is humbly submitted that in spite of several letters issued to the petitioner, he never heed to keep the progress of the work. After conduct of several contract management meeting and several Show Cause Notices issued to the petitioner, finally the contract was rescinded under clause 2 (i) of the agreement with imposition of penalty @ 20% of value of left over work. Thereby the rescission of the contract under clause 2 (i) of the agreement does not violate the principle of natural justice.
All other allegations/ averments made in this paragraph are hereby disputed and denied.
16. That the averments made in paragraphs No. 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the writ application shall be dealt with at the time of hearing."
10. From the above pleadings available on record, it is made clear that in reply to the contention raised by the petitioner, that there was non-compliance of the principles of natural justice, it has only been stated by the State- opposite parties that the action was taken under Clause-2(i) of the agreement, which cannot be construed to be compliance of the principles of natural justice. In absence of an effective reply to the pleading made on behalf of the petitioner, it is deemed that the same has been admitted by the opposite parties. It is trite that a fact admitted need not be proved. An admission of fact in the written Page 15 of 27 statement/counter need not be proved, reason being an admission is concession or voluntary acknowledgement made by a party or someone identified with him in legal interest of the existence of certain fact which are in issue or relevant to an issue in the case. The predominant characteristic of this type of evidence consists in its binding characters.
11. Admissions are broadly classified into two categories; (a) Judicial admissions; and (b) Extra-judicial admissions. Judicial admissions are formal admissions made by a party during the proceedings of the case. Extra- judicial admissions are informal admissions not appearing on the record of the case. The former are fully binding on the party that makes them. They constitute a waiver of proof.
12. Section 58 of the Evidence Act confines to judicial admission such as admission by pleadings. It normally relates to agreed statements of facts made between both parties to save time and expenses at a trial. Page 16 of 27
13. The basic principle under Order 6 Rule 5 of CPC is that every allegation of fact in the plaint must be taken as admitted unless denied or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant. Hence, where there is no pleading of the defendant, there can be no denial or non- admission on his part and he is bound by all the allegations in the plaint.
14. Section 3 (vi) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations of Practice, 1997 also clarifies that pleading shall include original applications, reply statements, rejoinders and additional statements supplementing the original applications and reply statement as may be permitted by the tribunal.
15. In Vidyawati Gupta v. Bhakti Hari Nayak, (2006) 2 SCC 777, the apex Court held that the word 'pleadings' under Order VI Rule 1 and Order VII of the Code means 'plaint' or written statement.
16. In K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini, (2009) 1 SCC 354, the apex Court held that 'pleadings' consist Page 17 of 27 only of a plaint and a written statement. A replication if filed by plaintiff and allowed by the Court would be a part of 'pleadings'.
'Pleadings' include particulars and a 'pleading' must state only facts and not law.
17. In M. Venkataramana Hebbar (Dead) by LRS v. M. Rajagopal Hebbar & others, (2007) 6 SCC 401, the apex Court held the averments made in the plaint not been denied in the written statement, the said averment is deemed to be admitted. Therefore, in terms of Section 58 of the Evidence Act, facts admitted need not be proved. Therefore, the Court was entitled to draw the inference that the same has been admitted.
18. In Jaspal Kaur Cheema and another v.
Industrial Trade Links and others, (2017) 8 SCC 592, the apex Court held that the defendant in the written statement must categorically deny or dispute the averments made in the plaint, as evasive denial would amount to an admission of the allegation made in the plaint. Page 18 of 27
19. Applying the said analogy to the present case, it is made clear that when a specific plea has been taken by the petitioner in the writ petition at paragraphs-12 and 15, as quoted above, the manner in which the opposite parties have replied in their counter affidavit at paragraphs 14 and 16 is absolutely evasive one, which cannot be accepted. Therefore, an inference can be drawn that the principle of natural justice has not been complied with while issuing the letter under Annexure-7 dated 12.01.2023 in rescinding the contract.
20. The essential of compliance of natural justice is nothing but a duty to act fairly. Natural justice is an antithesis of arbitrariness. It, therefore, follows that audi alteram partem, which is facet of natural justice is a requirement of Art.14.
The word 'nature' literally means the innate tendency or quality of things or objects and the word 'just' means upright, fair or proper. The expression 'natural Page 19 of 27 justice' would, therefore, mean the innate quality of being fair.
Natural justice, another name of which is common sense of justice, is the name of those principles which constitute the minimum requirement of justice and without adherence to which justice would be a travesty. Natural justice accordingly stands for that fundamental quality of fairness which being adopted, justice must not only be done but also appears to be done.
The soul of natural justice is "fair play in action".
21. In HK (An Infant) in re, 1967 1 All ER 226 (DC), Lord Parker, CJ, preferred to describe natural justice as 'a duty to act fairly'.
22. In Fairmount Investments Ltd. v. Secy. of State for Environment, 1976 2 All ER 865 (HL), Lord Russel of Killowen somewhat picturesquely described natural justice as 'a fair crack of the whip'.
23. In R. v. Secy. Of State for Home Affairs, ex p. Hosenball, Geoffrey Lane, LJ, 1977 3 All ER 452 (DC & CA), Page 20 of 27 preferred the homely phrase 'common fairness' in defining natural justice.
24. In Ridge v. Baldwin, (1963) 2 SLL RT 66 at 102, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest observed that "it is well established that the essential requirements of natural justice at least include that before someone is condemned he is to have an opportunity of defending himself, and in order that he may do so that he is to be made aware of the charges or allegations or suggestions which he has to meet ... My Lords, here is something which is basic to our system: the importance of upholding it far transcends the significance of any particular case".
25. In Byrne v. Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd, (1958) All ER 579, while considering the requirements of natural justice, Justice Narman, J said. "........First, I think that the person accused should know the nature of the accusation made; secondly, that he should be given an opportunity to state his case; and thereby, of course, that Page 21 of 27 the tribunal should act in good faith. I do not think that there really is anything more".
26. In Russel v. Duke of Norfolk, (1949) 1 All ER 109, Tucker, LJ, observed that one essential is that the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case. The view of Tucker, LJ, in Russell's case (supra) has been approved by the Supreme Court of India in Rattan Lal Sharma v Managing Committee, (1993) 4 SCC 10 : AIR 1993 SC 2115.
27. In General Medical Council v. Spackman, (1943) AC 627, Lord Wright pointed out that it should give a full and fair opportunity to every party being heard.
28. In A.K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150: (1969) 2 SCC 262, is a landmark in the growth of this doctrine. Speaking for the Constitution Bench, Hegde, J. observed thus:
"If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries. Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries Page 22 of 27 which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry".
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 : (1978) 1 SCC 248, law has done further blooming of this concept. This decision has established beyond doubt that even in an administrative proceeding involving civil consequences doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable.
29. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818, the meaning of 'natural justice' came for consideration before the apex Court and the apex Court observed as follows:-
"The phrase is not capable of a static and precise definition. It cannot be imprisoned in the straight- jacket of a cast-iron formula. Historically, "natural justice" has been used in a way "which implies the existence of moral principles of self evident and urarguable truth". "Natural justice" by Paul Jackson, 2nd Ed., page-1. In course of time, judges nurtured in the traditions of British jurispruduence, often invoked it in conjuction with a reference to "equity and good conscience". Legal experts of earlier generations did not draw any distinction between "natural justice" and "natural law".Page 23 of 27
"Natural justice" was considered as "that part of natural law which relates to the administration of justice."
30. In Basudeo Tiwary v Sido Kanhu University and others (1998) 8 SCC 194, the apex Court held that natural justice is an antithesis of arbitrariness. It, therefore, follows that audi alteram partem, which is facet of natural justice is a requirement of Art.14.
31. In Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 276, the apex Court held as follows:
"The rule of law demands that the power to determine questions affecting rights of citizens would impose the limitation that the power should be exercised in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Thus, whenever a man's rights are affected by decisions taken under statutory powers, the court would presume the existence of a duty to observe the rules of natural justice. It is important to note in this context the normal rule that whenever it is necessary to ensure against the failure of justice, the principles of natural justice must be read into a provision. Such a course is not permissible where the rule excludes expressly or by necessary intendment, the application of the principles of natural justice, but in that event, the validity of that rule may fall for consideration."
32. The apex Court in Uma Nath Panday and others v State of U.P. and others, AIR 2009 SC 2375, Page 24 of 27 held that natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience, to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice.
33. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, AIR1978 SC 851 : (1978) 1 SCC 405, the apex Court held that natural justice is treated as a pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch enlivens legislation, administration and adjudication, to make fairness a creed of life. It has many colours and shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid law excludes, it applies when people are affected by acts of Authority. It is the bone of healthy government, recognised from earliest times and not a mystic testament of judge- made law. Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam-and of Kautilya's Arthasastra-the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice.
34. In Bhagwan v. Ramchand, AIR 1965 SC 1767:
(1965) 3 SCR 218, the apex Court held that the rule of law Page 25 of 27 demands that the power to determine questions affecting rights of citizens would impose the limitation that the power should be exercised in conformity with the principles of natural justice.
35. In Sukdev Singh v Bhagatram, AIR 1975 SC 1331: (1975)1 SCC 421, the apex Court held that whenever a man's rights are affected by decisions taken under statutory powers, the court would presume the existence of a duty to observe the rules of natural justice.
36. In view of the facts and law, as discussed above, it is made clear that while issuing letter no. 243 dated 12.01.2023 in rescinding the contract, there was gross violation of the principles of natural justice, which has been admitted in the pleadings made in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties. Therefore, in view of the clear admission made by the opposite parties in their counter affidavit, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order issued under Annexure-7 dated Page 26 of 27 12.01.2023 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed.
37. In the result, therefore, the writ petition stands allowed. But, however, under the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
M.S. RAMAN, J. I agree.
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 28th July, 2023, Arun
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 28-Jul-2023 16:19:38 Page 27 of 27