Orissa High Court
Managing Committee Of Nakula vs State Of Odisha And Others on 8 May, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.762 of 2025
Managing Committee of Nakula .... Appellant
Chandra Special School for Hearing
Impaired and Nakula Chandra
Special School for Visual Impaired
and NGO, Angul
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Respondents
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellant : Mr. Dillip Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Saswat Das,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
JUDGMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 8th May, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. A disgruntled litigant approaches the writ Court assailing
the letter dated 8th November, 2024 issued by the Additional
District Magistrate (ADM), Angul requiring certain materials
and/or documents to be handed over for the purpose of the enquiry
or the consideration to be taken in this regard.
2. Undeniably, the appellant was running the institution and
subsequently, the management and the administration was taken
over by the authorities on the basis of certain complaints and/or the
allegations which were prima facie appear to have been
substantiated.
3. The appellant challenged the same before this Court in
W.P.(C) No.5509 of 2023 which came to be disposed of on 13th
August, 2024 with the following directions:
"9. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the
view that the Petitioner should be given a chance
and thorough inquiry should be done before passing
a detailed order. Accordingly, while setting aside the
Office order No.1346/SS issued by the learned
Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Angul on
22.07.2021/Annexure-6 and the proceeding of the
Managing Committee of Special School dated
25.01.2023 communicated vide letter dated
06.02.2023/Annexure-5 passed by the learned
District Social Security Officer, Angul, this Court
directs the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 to permit the
Petitioner to run the management of the School in
question for the time being.
10. This Court further directs the Collector-cum-
District Magistrate, Angul to conduct the inquiry
afresh and prepare a report. The said inquiry report
be handed over to the present Petitioner and the
Petitioner as well as all the parties concerned be
provided with opportunity to put forth their position.
Thereafter, a lawful order may be passed in terms of
the provision at clause 11(7) of the Resolution
No.532/2013-WCD dated 08.01.2013."
4. It is thus manifest from the observations recorded in the
above order that the appellant was permitted to run the said
institution for the time being and the authorities were directed to
make a fresh investigation and/or enquiry. The reason being that
the earlier decision of the authorities was found to be in gross
violation of the principle of natural justice, which is one of the
fundamental facets in the judicial dispensation system in pursuit of
rendering justice and, therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that
the moment the fresh enquiry was directed, it has to be undertaken
following the principles of natural justice.
5. Subsequently, the impugned letter dated 8th November,
2024 was issued, which is construed by the appellant to have
impacted their rights crystalized in terms of the order dated 13 th
August, 2024 and approached the writ Court to quash and set aside
the same.
6. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellant
vehemently submits that the said letter is intended to nullifying the
order passed by this Court in an earlier round of the litigation and
in fact is an outcome of malice. It is arduously submitted that
despite a specific direction passed by the writ Court in the earlier
writ petition permitting the appellant to run the institution, they
have not been permitted to do so and, therefore, the impugned
letter is tainted with malice and issued with a malafide intention to
subvert the right accrued in terms of the order passed in the earlier
writ petition. Reference is also made to various provisions of the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 pertaining to the
registration of the institution for the persons with disabilities to
buttress the submission that the authorities cannot violate such
mandates and act contrary thereto.
7. The sequel of events as narrated hereinabove evince that
the said institution was managed and runned by the appellant being
the Non-Government organization and complaints were lodged
against them, not only by the employees but from the other
quarters of the section of the societies which led the supersession
of the management and the order in this regard was passed by the
competent authority. Obviously, the appellant challenged the said
order in the writ petition which was quashed and set aside on the
ground of violation of various provisions of law as well as the
principles of natural justice with categorical observation that for
the time being, the appellant may be permitted to run such
institution.
8. Simultaneously, the order was passed to make a fresh
enquiry and the impugned letter dated 8th November, 2024 issued
by the ADM, not only repleting the direction of the Court that you
have been permitted to run and in fact is continuing to run the said
institution but is indicative of other facts that such continuance in
managing and running the said institution is without any grant-in-
aid and, therefore, you are directed to hand over certain materials
as indicated therein to the department.
9. We do not find any incongruity and/or ambiguity in the
said letter which would tantamount to subversion of the order of
this Court in relation to the management and administration of the
said institution is concerned, as the language employed therein is
explicit and clear that the appellant is continuing to run the said
institution. Whether the institution managed and administered by
the appellant is with the grant-in-aid or without grant-in-aid is an
issue to be decided to be taken up by the authorities to which we
are not concerned with.
10. There is no other stipulation provided in the order passed
in the earlier writ petition except to the extent as indicated
hereinabove and, therefore, any requisition is made unconnected
with the subject matter of dispute involved in the earlier writ
petition, it is not open to the appellant to contend that the action of
the authorities is in gross violation of the direction/order passed by
this Court on 13th August, 2024. The letter neither undermined the
authority of the appellant in continuing to run the said institution
nor could be perceived to have impacted any right accrued in terms
of the order passed by this Court on 13th August, 2024.
11. Since the authorities are in the process of making a fresh
enquiry, which is also reflected in the impugned order, we do not
find any reason to put any fetter in continuance thereof in terms of
the order passed on 13th August, 2024 and, therefore, the ultimate
decision taken by the learned single Judge cannot be faulted with.
12. We do not find any ground warranting interference with
the impugned order of the learned single Judge.
13. The appeal is thus dismissed. The connected applications,
if any, are also dismissed.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
S. Behera
S.K. Behera
Signed by: SISIRA KUMAR BEHERA
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 09-May-2025 10:56:54
