Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha & Ors vs Ajay Kumar Panigrahi & Anr on 30 November, 2023
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.84 of 2022
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Appellants
Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA
-versus-
Ajay Kumar Panigrahi & Anr. .... Respondents
Mr. S.D. Routray, Advocate
(Respondent No. 2)
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
30.11.2023
Order No
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing
for the Appellants and Mr. S.D. Routray, learned Addl. Govt.
Advocate appearing for the Respondents. Since both the appeals
have been filed challenging the Judgment dtd.30.06.2022 passed in
GIA Case No. 304 of 2018, both the matters are heard analogously
and dispose of by the present common order.
3. This appeal has been filed by the State challenging the
correctness of the Judgment so passed in the GIA Case No. 55 of
2015.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 contended that since
the applicant in the GIA Case has prayed for approval and sanction
of GIA as per GIA Order, 1994, the Tribunal instead of deciding
// 2 //
the issue could not have remitted the matter to Respondent Nos. 1
& 2 to take a decision. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2
accordingly contended that the matter be remitted to the Tribunal to
decide the issue on merit. In support of his aforesaid submission,
Mr. Routray, learned counsel produced before this Court the
Judgment passed in FAO Nos. 313 and 314 of 2011 in the case of
Harjit Kaur Vs. State of Odisha.
4.1. This Court in Para 8, 9 and 10 of the said Judgment has held as
follows:-
"8. In view of such position, if the statute vests a power with
the Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes with regard to
eligibility of grant-in-aid, it could not have divested the said
power by passing the impugned orders. It is well settled
principle of law laid down by the Privy Council in Nazir
Ahmad v. King Emperor, MANU/PR/0020/1936 ATR 1936
PC 253 and subsequently followed by the Apex Court in
Municipal Corporation of Deth Jagdish Lal,
MANU/SC/0124/1969 AIR 1970 SC 7: Ramachandra Keshav
Adve (Dead by LRs. v. Govind Joti Chavare,
MANU/SC/0511/1975 AIR 1975 SC 915 and Bats Verghese v
Bar Council of Kerala, MANU/SC/0168/1999 AIR 1999 SC
121 and various Courts that if the statute prescribes a thing
to be done in a particular manner, the same should be done
in the same manner or not at all.
9. In that view of the matter, the learned tribunal has
committed a gross error apparent on the face of the record in
remitting the matter back to the authorities without
adjudicating the same. In addition to the same in a similarly
situated case, Le, the case of Manoj Kumar Tripathy, who
was appointed along with the appellants in the same
// 3 //
institution on the same date and approached in learned
Tribunal by filing G.1.A. Case No. 107 of 2009 the Tribunal
after due adjudication has allowed the benefit of granting
G.I.A. In his favour at the rate of 1/3rd, 2/3rd and Full from
1-6-1995, 1-6-1997 and 1 6-1999 respectively and the
appellants having stood on the same footing, should not have
been discriminated. While adjudicating the cases of the
appellants, the learned Tribunal has not applied its mind and
without going through the same passed the Impugned
judgments remitting the matter back to the State Government
though all the materials which have been placed in the case
Manoj Kumar Tripathy have also been referred to in the case
of the present appellants but the same have not been taken
into consideration.
10. For the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned judgments passed by
the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained. Therefore, the
judgments dated 21-6-2011 passed by the learned Tribunal in
G.1.A. Case No. 119 of 2009 arising out of which FAO No.
313 of 2011 arises and dated 13-6-2011 passed in G.I.A.
Case No. 123 of 2009 out of which learned Tribunal 2012
arises, are hereby quashed. The matters are remitted back to
the learned Tribunal to re-hear the GIA Case Nos. 319 and
123 of 2009 and dispose of the same after giving due
opportunity to the parties. With the above observation and
direction, the appeals have been allowed."
5. Mr. S.K. Samal, learned AGA appearing for the Appellants does
not dispute the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
placing reliance on the decision as cited (supra), this Court is of the
view that the Tribunal instead of remitting the matter to the
// 4 //
Appellants, should have decided the matter on its own merit. In
view of such position, this Court is inclined to quash the Judgment
dtd.10.02.2020 so passed in GIA Case No. 55 of 2015 by the
Tribunal. While quashing the Judgment, this Court, remits the
matter to the Tribunal to take a fresh decision in accordance with
law and by giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
6.1. Since the GIA Case is of the year 2015, the Tribunal is directed
to dispose of the matter within a period of six (6) months from the
date of receipt of this order, if there is no other legal impediment.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
