Orissa High Court
Dr. Swapan Kumar Karak vs Board Of Governors Of .... Opposite ... on 16 April, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RANJEETA SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 17-Apr-2025 15:54:53
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.8636 of 2025
Dr. Swapan Kumar Karak .... Petitioner
Mr. H. Dhal, Advocate
-versus-
Board of Governors of .... Opposite Parties
NIT, Sundergarh &
Others
Mr. N.K. Sahoo, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
16.04.2025
Order No.03
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. Harmohan Dhal, learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner. Mr. N.K. Sahoo, learned
counsel appearing for the Opp. Party.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
with the following prayer:-
"Under these circumstances the
petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble
Court be graciously pleased to issue a Rule NISI
calling upon the opposite parties to show cause
as to why;
i) the report of the ICC under Annexure-4
and the recommendations thereunder shall not
quashed; made
ii) the order of the appellate authority
under Annexure-9 shall not be quashed;
iii) the opposite parties be permanently
restrained from taking action pursuant to the
Location: High Court of Orissa
ICC report under Annexure-4 as confirmed by
the appellate authority under Annexure-9;
If the opposite parties fail to show cause
or show insufficient cause the Rule be made
absolute.
And for this act of kindness the
petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray."
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court
on 26.09.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 5175/2020 and 2244/2020
under Annexure-5, so confirmed by the Writ Appellate
Court vide order dated 14.03.2024 in Writ Appeal No.1464
of 2022 under Annexure-7, petitioner preferred an appeal
before the Chairman, Board of Governors of NIT, Rourkela-
Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-3. But Opp. Party No.1
without proper appreciation of the grounds of appeal,
rejected the same vide the impugned order dt.31.05.2024
under Annexure-9.
4.1 It is also contended that the impugned order is a non-
speaking one as no reason has been assigned while not
accepting the grounds taken by the Petitioner in his memo of
appeal under Annexure-8. It is accordingly contended that
since the impugned order is a non-speaking one and no
reason has been assigned, the same is not sustainable in the
eye of law. Petitioner in support of such submission relied on
the decision of this Court so reported in 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-
736 and 2012(1) OLR-87.
4.2. This Court in Para-8 & 10 of the said judgment
reported in 2012(1) OLR-87 has held as follows:-
Location: High Court of Orissa
"8. Admittedly, the aforesaid order does not
contain any reason for rejecting of the bid and
cancellation of the tender. Law is no more res
integra that an authority must pass a reasoned
order indicating the material on which its
conclusion are based.
10. Reason is the heartbeat of every
conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and
without the same it becomes lifeless. [See Raj
Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar (2003) 11 SCC
510]".
4.3. This Court in Para-13 of the said judgment reported
in 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 has held as follows:-
"13. After giving our anxious hearing to the
matter and keeping in mind the position of law and
the CCA Rules, we are constrained to hold that the
learned Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction in
the matter. The impugned order of the Tribunal
smacks of application of judicial mind and
conscience. It is to be remembered that the reasons
are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons
could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause
prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more
particularly, hamper the proper administration of
justice. The orders of the Court must reflect what
weighed with the Court in granting or declining the
relief claimed by the Petitioner".
5. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Opp.
Parties on the other hand contended that in terms of the
order passed by this Court under Annexure-5, so confirmed
by the Writ Appellate Court vide order under Annexure-7,
Petitioner never preferred the appeal against the ICC report
and the appeal available under Annexure-8 is also not in
Location: High Court of Orissa
the prescribed format and it cannot be taken as an appeal
made against the ICC report. It is accordingly contended
that since in terms of the order passed by this Court
Petitioner never preferred the appeal against the ICC report
in question, it cannot be treated as an appeal in the eye of
law.
5.1 However, learned Counsel appearing for the Opp.
Parties do not dispute the order passed by Opp. Party No.1
under Annexure-9, against the appeal so filed by the
Petitioner under Annexure-8.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and
considering the submission made, this Court is of the view
that Petitioner has to prefer a fresh appeal against the ICC
report in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court
under Annexure-5, so confirmed vide order under
Annexure-7. While holding so, this Court is inclined to
quash the order under Annexure-9 as the same has been
passed without assigning any reason. While quashing the
order at Annexure-9, this Court grants liberty to the
Petitioner to prefer an appeal against the ICC report within
a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this
order. On such filing of the appeal within the aforesaid time
period, Opp. Party No.1 shall decide the same in
accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of
hearing to the Petitioner. Such a fresh decision be taken
within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of
the appeal. Till a fresh decision is taken, as directed, the
interim order passed on 06.03.2023 in Writ Appeal No.
1464 of 2022 shall continue.
Location: High Court of Orissa
6.1 It is further observed that if the appeal will be
preferred within the aforesaid time period, Opp. Party No.1
shall entertain the same and decide the issue on merit
without insisting on any delay.
The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of with
the aforesaid observation and direction.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Ranjeeta
