Orissa High Court
Ranulata Swain And Others vs The Chief Executive Officer on 28 July, 2022
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.35669 OF 2021
Ranulata Swain and others ..... Petitioners
Mr. G.P.Dutta, Advocate
-versus-
The Chief Executive Officer, TPCODL, .... Opp. Parties
Khordha and others
Mr. Ashok Kumar Mohanty, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 28.07.2022 2. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for TPCODL submits that for the self-same cause of action a complaint vide NHRC Case No.3259/18/23/2019 was filed before the National Human Right Commission and the same was disposed of vide order dated 2nd March, 2022 with the following direction:-
".... Therefore, the Commission confirms its recommendation and directs to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Odisha to release monetary relief of Rs.3,00,000/- to NOK of deceased victim Sh. Nilamani Swain of Ersama Block, District Jagatsinghpur and submit compliance report of payment along with proof of payment within four weeks. In response, the Special Secretary, Dept. of Energy vide communication dated 05.01.2022 submits that as per direction of the Commission to make payment of Rs.3,00,000/- to the NOK of deceased victim, a cheque dated 24.12.2021 of Rs.3,00,000/- was drawn in favour of wife of deceased, however, she refused to accept the cheque for the reasons best known to her. Further, on her constant refusal, the local Sarpanch along with local section officer of TPCODL, Ersama were requested to persuade her but she refused to accept the amount. The Commission has considered the material placed on record. In the present Page 1 of 3 // 2 // matter, farmer Nilamani Swain died due to electrocution. Vide proceedings dated 10.09.2021 the Commission issued show cause notice and in response it is informed that the wife of the deceased Sh. Nilamani Swain refused to accept the cheque amounting of Rs.3,00,000/-. The local Sarpanch also persuaded her but failed. In view of such facts and circumstances, the Commission is not inclined to take further action in the matter. The case is closed. Inform the complainant accordingly."
3. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have filed an affidavit dated 25.07.2022 stating that they were neither parties before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) nor they have been issued with any notice by the Commission in the aforesaid complaint case. They have also not received any benefit pursuant to the said direction. They are un-ware of such complaint. They also do not know the person, namely, Pratap Chandra Mohanty, who stated to have filed the complaint before the NHRC.
3.1 Copy of the said affidavit though stated to have been filed but the same is not on record. However, Mr. Dutta produces a copy of such affidavit in Court, which is taken on record. He also serves a copy of the same on Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. The affidavit filed by the Petitioner No.1 be brought on record.
4. Mr. Mohnaty, learned counsel for Opposite Parties- TPCODL submits that since for the self-same cause of action the NHRC has already taken cognizance and has already disposed of the matter, the writ petition is not maintainable. He, however, submits that TPCODL will respond to the affidavit filed by the Petitioner No.1 being served on him in Court today.
Page 2 of 3// 3 //
5. Put up this mater on 25th August, 2022, by which time reply to the affidavit filed by the Petitioners, if any, shall be filed serving copy thereof on learned counsel for the Petitioners.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge s.s.satapathy Page 3 of 3