Orissa High Court
Basumati Panda & Others vs State Of Odisha & Others on 10 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.7681 of 2019
Basumati Panda & Others .... Petitioners
Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others
.... Opposite Parties
Mr. B. Panigrahi, ASC
Ms. S. Pattnaik, Adv. for O.P.4
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
10.10.2023
Order No.
07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
3. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioners
challenging the order dtd.07.03.2019 so passed by Opposite
Party No.2 under Annexure-7, wherein the prayer of the
Petitioner to bifurcate Balasore Mahila Degree College from
Balasore Mahila Junior College was rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that as
the prayer for such bifurcation was not acceded to by the
Opposite Parties, Petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(C)
No.9541/2017. This Court vide order dtd.24.07.2017
disposed of the matter with certain direction. Relevant extract
of said order is quoted hereunder:-
// 2 //
" Considering the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for
the parties and after going through the records, since the
petitioners seek for bifurcation of +2 wing from +3 wing so that
staff of respective wings would get their benefits in accordance
with law, liberty is granted to the petitioners to file a fresh
representation within two weeks hence before opposite party
no.2, the Director, Higher Education, Odisha highlighting their
grievances in consonance with the judgment dated 08.04.2016
delivered in W.P.(C) No.2253 of 2012 (Governing Body of
Abhimanyu Samanta Singhar College, Balia v. State of
Orissa and others) and in such event opposite party no.2 shall
consider and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order
keeping in view the aforementioned judgment as expeditiously
as possible, preferably within a period of two months by
affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned.".
4.1. It is contended that in terms of the said order, though
Petitioners filed a detailed representation on 05.08.2017 as
stated in Para-16 of the writ petition, but Opposite Party No.2
without proper appreciation of the order passed by this Court
as well as the decisions governing the field, rejected the claim
on the ground, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is
accordingly contended that the impugned order requires
interference of this Court.
5. Mr. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the
State on the other hand raised a preliminary issue by stating
that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the earlier
writ petition, no such representation was ever filed by the
Petitioner within the stipulated time.
5.1. It is contended that without filing any representation as
directed, the contempt petition was filed for compliance of the
order. Opposite Party No.2 in absence of proper materials
placed by the Petitioner before him rejected the claim vide the
impugned order dtd.07.03.2019 under Annexure-7.
Learned Addl. Standing Counsel accordingly contended
that let the Petitioner file a fresh representation before
// 3 //
Opposite Party No.2 along with supporting the documents and
Opposite Party No.2 be directed to take a fresh decision in the
matter.
6. Ms. S. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for
Opposite Party No.4 has no serious objection to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as
well as the State.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after
going though the materials available on record, this Court
finds that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on
24.07.2017, no representation as such was filed by the
Petitioners. No such representation is also enclosed as an
Annexure to the writ petition. Therefore, this Court is not
unable to accept the stand of the Petitioner that such a
representation was filed on 05.08.2017 as contended.
8. Be that as it may, considering the earlier order passed
by this Court and the decision governing the field, this Court
is inclined to remit the matter to Opposite Party No.2 with
quashing of the impugned order dtd.07.03.2019 under
Annexure-7. While remitting the matter, this Court directs
Opposite Party No.2 to take a fresh decision on the claim
raised by the Petitioners. It is observed that if a fresh
representation is filed along with the decisions and supporting
documents within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of
receipt of this order with due acknowledgement, Opposite
Party No.2 shall take a lawful decision on the same within a
further period of six(6) weeks. Petitioner is directed to produce
a copy of this order along with the representation and the
// 4 //
decision supporting their claim before Opposite Party No.2 for
compliance.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 12-Oct-2023 16:00:49
