Orissa High Court
Kalinga Institute Of Mining vs State Of Odisha And Others on 8 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.24149 Of 2021
(Through hybrid mode)
Kalinga Institute of Mining .... Petitioner
Engineering and Technology Trust
Mr. Budhadev Routray, Senior Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Y.S.P. Babu, AGA
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
Mr. A.K. Rath, Advocate for O.P.4
Mr. S.S. Rao, Advocate (I.A. no.15569 of 2021)
Mr. B.K. Patnaik (I.A. no.12780 of 2021)
Mr. A.P. Bose (I.A. no.15144 of 2021)
Interveners
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Order ORDER
No. 08.12.2021
06. 1. Mr. Routray, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of
petitioner. He submits, his client is the institute and has filed through
its Founder Trustee-cum-Chairman, who was opposite party no.4 in
R.S.A. no.47 of 2007 (Kalinga Institute of Mining Engineering &
Technology (KIMET) and others v. Kishore Chandra Nath and
others). This was a Second Appeal dealt with by judgment dated 18th
// 2 //
November, 2014. The learned Judge dismissed the Second Appeal on
contest and said, inter alia as follows:
"20. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed on
contest but, in the facts and circumstances, without cost.
Judgment of the learned lower appellate Court is
confirmed. R-4 and R-5 being found to have never
ceased to be the members of the Trust Board are entitled
to act as the Board of Trustees under the Deed of Trust
as well as the bye-laws of the Trust including the
management and functioning of the Trust, i.e., the
Institution (A-1). The Receivership shall stand
terminated on the expiry of two months from the date of
this judgment. The Collector, Angul as Receiver shall
hand over charge of the entire management of the
Institution to the members of the Trust Board existing as
on the date of handing over of such charge. On the
expiry of the aforesaid period of two months the
Receiver shall cease to exercise any function in respect
of the management of the institution including exercise
of financial power."
2. Against aforesaid judgment there was Special Leave Petition
made to the Supreme Court and on 6th January, 2015, it was
dismissed. He demonstrates that the Administration relinquished
control over the institute to his client. Then, suddenly by memo dated
13th May, 2019, the Administration wrote to several banks as
follows:
// 3 //
"With reference to subject cited above, you
are here by directed not to do any kind of financial
transaction in favour of Institution of KIMET,
Chhendipada without prior written clearance of the
Collector, Angul & Tahasildar, Chhendipada -cum-
Appropriate officer of KIMET, Chhendipada.
This is for your information & necessary
action."
3. His client was compelled to approach this Court by W.P.(C)
no.29007 of 2019 disposed of by order dated 28th September, 2020,
pursuant to which, Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government
directed the Administration to withdraw the memo. It was withdrawn
by subsequent memo dated 23rd November, 2020.
4. In spite of the memo impeding banking transactions having
been withdrawn, his client was again compelled to approach this
Court by W.P.(C) no.11646 of 2019. A coordinate Bench said that
nothing remained to be decided in the writ petition and made
following observation.
"So far as the Fixed Deposit of the trust
KIMET is concerned, the petitioner may apply for
withdrawal from Fixed Deposit before the
concerned Bank and the Manager shall take a
decision on the application in accordance with the
// 4 //
rules of the Bank within a month of filing of that
application."
5. Petitioner is now before Court against, inter alia, letter dated
8th July, 2021 issued by opposite party no.4, whereby petitioner has
yet again been obstructed from encashing the fixed deposit standing
in its favour.
6. Mr. A. K. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of
opposite party no.4 and submits, impugned letter dated 8th July, 2021
was issued by his client pursuant to and in compliance with above
observation made in order dated 15th February, 2021. He prays for
adjournment to produce the rules governing his bank, to show basis
of the letter.
7. Mr. Rao, Mr. Pattnaik and Mr. Bose, learned advocates
respectively appear in support of their clients, who want to intervene
by applications I.A. no.15569 of 2021, I.A. no.12780 of 2021 and
I.A. no.15144 of 2021.
8. List on 14th December, 2021.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
Sks
