Orissa High Court
Sibu Kanungo vs State Of Odisha And Others on 28 July, 2023
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
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(P&B) Circle, Khurdha, has rescinded the contract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.
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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."
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
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
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
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:-
"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
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.
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
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.
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
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),
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
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
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".
"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,
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
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
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
