Orissa High Court
Rekha Bag vs State Of Odisha & .... Opp. Parties on 21 April, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.27087 of 2021
Rekha Bag .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Satapathy, Adv.
on behalf of Mr. P.K
Samantaray, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & .... Opp. Parties
Others Mr. C.K. Pradhan,
AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order 21.04.2025
No
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia
with the following prayer:-
"The petitioners, therefore, pray that Your Lordship
would be graciously pleased to admit the case call for
the records and after hearing the parties allow the
same, issue writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari
and/or any other/further writ/direction quashing
Annexure-1 so far as Sarpanch, Jagdalpur G.P. under
Jharbandh Block in the district of Bargarh is
concerned."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
petitioner who happens to be the Ex-Sarpanch of Jagdalpur
G.P. under Jharbandh Block was issued with a show-cause by
O.P. No.2 on 22.07.2021 under Annexure-4. It is contended
that petitioner though submitted a detailed reply to the show-
// 2 //
cause on 30.07.2021 under Annexure-5, but without proper
appreciation of the same and without assigning any reason,
show-cause reply was not accepted with passing of the
impugned order on 24.08.2021 under Annexure-1.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since
petitioner has taken various grounds in her reply to the show-
cause under Annexure-5, the same should have been
considered and if it is not acceptable then a reasoned order
should have been passed thereby enabling the petitioner to
know the reason for not accepting her reply to the show-cause.
Since order at Annexure-1 has been passed without assigning
any reason, it is not sustainable in the eye of law in view of
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court so confirmed by
this Court reported in 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 (Smt.
Parvati Dash and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and
Others) and 2012(1) OLR-87 (Akhila Kumar Mohapatra
Vrs. State of Odisha and Others).
4.2. This Court in Para-8 & 10 of the judgment reported in
2012(1) OLR-87 has held as follows:-
"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]".
// 3 //
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 anxius 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".
4.4. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order
so far as it relates to the petitioner is not sustainable in
the eye of law.
5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand
contended that since the impugned order has been passed
by following the principle of natural justice, no illegality or
irregularity can be found with the same.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that
petitioner while working as Sarpanch, she was issued with
the show-cause by O.P. No.2 on 22.07.2021 under
Annexure-4. As found, petitioner submitted a detailed
reply on 30.07.2021 under Annexure-5. This Court after
going through the impugned order dated 24.08.2021,
found that O.P. No.2 without assigning any reason held
the petitioner liable to pay the amount in question along
with others. Since no reason has been assigned with
// 4 //
regard to non-acceptance of the reply submitted by the
petitioner under Annexure-5, this court placing reliance
on the aforesaid decisions as cited (supra), is inclined to
quash order dated 24.08.2021 so passed by O.P. No.2
under Annexure-1 so far as it relates to the claim of the
petitioner. While quashing the same, this Court directs
O.P. No.2 to take a fresh decision by giving due
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such a fresh
decision as directed be taken within a period of 2 (two)
months from the date of receipt of this order. Till a fresh
decision is taken, interim order passed by this Court on
07.09.2021 shall continue.
7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 25-Apr-2025 17:45:06
