[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Prasant Kumar Digal vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 12 March, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.2410 of 2026
Prasant Kumar Digal .... Petitioner
Mr. S. K. Lenka, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.
.... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.P. Das, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 12.03.2026
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Pursuant to the orders dtd.27.01.2026 and
17.02.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced
the instruction so provided by the RDC, Southern
Division vide letter dtd.11.03.2026. The same be kept
in record.
4. Basing on the instruction, it is contended that
letter dtd.27.10.2025 was duly communicated to the
Petitioner by post.
5. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter
alia with the following prayer:-
"Therefore it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to issue rule nisi to the Opp.parties as to why
the final order dtd.29.11.2025 in FCC No.460/10
passed by the Opp. No.3 vide Annexure-7 shall not be
// 2 //
quashed on the ground stated in the writ petition and
the Opp.parties showing no cause or insufficient cause
or cause not to the satisfaction of the Hon'ble Court, the
writ petition may be allowed.
And for which act of the Hon'ble Court's grace the
petitioner shall ever pray."
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that Petitioner was before this Court earlier
in W.P.(C) No.9167 of 2017. The said Writ Petition was
disposed of vide order dtd.13.11.2024 under Annexure-
5, inter alia with the following order:-
"1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Since the Writ Petition has been filed against a notice,
this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. It
is open for the petitioner to take all those stand that has
been taken in the Writ Petition while filing the reply
against the said notice. It is observed that the
Committee shall take into consideration the reply and
proceed with the matter in accordance with law, in
which this Court expresses no opinion.
4. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
5. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated."
6.1. It is contended that pursuant to the order so
passed, Petitioner filed his reply to the show cause on
25.06.2025 under Annexure-6 and after receipt of the
same, in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-
7(14) of the Odisha Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance
and Verification of Caste Certificates) Rules, 2023 (In
short 'Rules'). Proclamation was issued to the District
// 3 //
Welfare Officer and concerned Tahasildar vide letter
dtd.30.06.2025.
6.2. It is contended that basing on such proclamation,
concerned Tahasildar vide letter dtd.28.07.2025
submitted the report to the effect that no objection has
been received during the proclamation period.
Concerned Tahasildar vide letter dtd.14.10.2025,
submitted filed enquiry report so furnished by the R.I.,
Katingia.
6.3. It is contended that without providing the report
so submitted after proclamation by the Tahasildar on
28.07.2025 and report of the RI so submitted vide
letter 16.10.2025 and without following the provisions
contained under Rule-7(14) to 7(20) of the aforesaid
rules, the matter was finally disposed of by the
Committee vide the impugned order dtd.29.11.2025
under Annexure-7. Rule-7(14) to 7(20) of the Rules
reads as follows:-
"7(14) After conducting the personal hearing, the
Scrutiny Committee shall issue proclamation through
the concerned District Welfare Officer and Tahasildar
in the locality of the alleged person inviting objections
from persons and registered organizations within
fifteen days from the date of issue of proclamation by
beat of drum or any other mode and to accomplish the
task, the Member Convener of the Scrutiny Committee
shall send the copies of the allegation petition, the
enquiry report of the District Vigilance Cell, the show
cause reply of the alleged person and the statements
of the alleged person, the complainant and the
witnesses recorded during personal hearing to the
// 4 //
concerned District Welfare Officer or Tahasildar
translated into the local language.
(15) Any person or organization who wants to say
anything in the case, shall intimate the Chairperson
of the Scrutiny Committee in writing adducing
evidences either through the concerned District
Welfare Officer or the Tahasildar, as the case may be,
or directly within the stipulated period of fifteen days
after which no petitions shall be entertained.
(16) Within a week from the date of expiry of the
period of fifteen days, the District Welfare Officer or
Tahasildar, as the case may be, shall intimate the
Member Convener of the Scrutiny Committee about
the date of proclamation and the petitions received
from any quarter.
(17) In case the petitioner wants to be heard in person
and to adduce evidences before the Scrutiny
Committee he or she shall be allowed to do so either
in person or through counsel.
(18) The date of hearing to be fixed by the Scrutiny
Committee shall be duly intimated to such petitioner
and the hearing shall be conducted transparently in
presence of the alleged person and his or her counsel,
if any, providing him or her opportunity to defend
himself or herself and the proceedings of the hearing
shall be recorded.
(19) After the hearing, if so required, the Scrutiny
Committee may make further enquiries through the
District Vigilance Cell and other concerned officers to
gather evidences and ascertain the truth and
thereafter the process of enquiry shall be concluded.
(20) After conclusion of the process Committee shall
fix up a date for consideration of the facts and
findings of the case and pass the final speaking order
and if any new facts come to notice, the Scrutiny
Committee shall decide to address the same in the
manner as it may like and then pass the final order."
6.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that since after receipt of the report after
issuance of the proclamation on 28.07.2025 and the
// 5 //
report of the RI vide letter dtd.14.10.2025, the same
were never provided to the Petitioner, and the matter
was disposed of finally with passing of the impugned
order dtd.29.11.2025 without following the provisions
contained under Rule-7(15) to 7(20) of the Rules, the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and
it requires interference of this Court.
6.5. It is also contended that prior to filing of the reply
to the show-cause on 25.06.2025 under Annexure-6,
the Committee had recorded the statement of the
witnesses on 07.10.2023 and Petitioner was never
given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses so
examined by the prosecution.
Making all these submission, learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner contended that the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
7. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on
the other hand basing on the instruction contended
that after remand of the matter by this Court and on
filing of the reply by the Petitioner on 25.06.2025 under
Annexure-6, proclamation was issued by the
Committee vide letter dtd.30.06.2025. The report was
submitted by the concerned Tahasildar, vide letter
dtd.28.07.2025 with the report that no objection has
been received during the proclamation period.
Subsequently filed enquiry report submitted by the RI
// 6 //
that Petitioner does belong to 'Panna' by caste and
Christian in religion was forwarded by the Tahasildar,
vide letter dtd.14.10.2025. Both the report after
proclamation and the report of the RI was provided to
the Petitioner vide letter dtd.14.10.2025 and the same
was duly received by the Petitioner. Since Petitioner
never filed any objection to the report nor the report of
the RI, the matter was finally heard and disposed of
vide the impugned order dtd.29.11.2025 under
Annexure-7.
7.1. It is accordingly contended that since after receipt
of the report on proclamation and the report of the RI
so provided to the Petitioner vide letter dtd.14.10.2025,
Petitioner never took any further steps in the matter,
no illegality or irregularity can be found with the
impugned order.
8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties and considering the submissions made, this
Court finds that Petitioner challenging the notice
issued in the proceeding was before this Court in
W.P.(C) No.9176 of 2017. This Court while directing
the State Counsel to obtain instruction passed an
interim order on 28.06.2017, by staying the further
proceeding in FCC No.460 of 2010.
8.1. However, the Writ Petition was ultimately
disposed of by this Court vide order dtd. 13.11.2024,
// 7 //
wherein Petitioner was permitted to file his reply to the
show cause and direction was issued to dispose of the
matter in accordance with law.
8.2. In terms of the said order, Petitioner as found,
filed his reply under Annexure-6 on 25.06.2025 and on
receipt of such reply, proclamation was issued by the
Committee -Opposite Party No.3 on 30.06.2025. Report
after such proclamation was forwarded by the
concerned Tahasildar vide letter dtd.28.07.2025 and
filed enquiry report of the concerned R.I showing that
Petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Caste, was also
submitted by the Tahasildar vide letter dtd.14.10.2025.
8.3. Even though accepting the stand that report of
the Tahasildar dtd.28.07.2025 and filed enquiry report
of the RI forwarded vide letter dtd.14.10.2025 were
communicated to the Petitioner vide letter
dtd.14.10.2025, this Court finds that after receipt of
the report vide letter dtd.28.07.2025 and the other
report vide letter dtd14.10.2025, the proceeding was
never conducted in terms of the provisions contained
under Rule-7(15) to 7(20) of the Rules. Not only that
prior to appearance of the Petitioner with filing of his
reply to the show-cause on 25.06.2025, the Committee
had already recorded the statement of the witnesses on
07.10.2023 and Petitioner was never allowed to cross-
examine such witnesses.
// 8 //
8.4. Since admittedly after receipt of the report and
the report of the RI, provisions contained under Rule-
7(15) to 7(20) of the Rules have not been followed and
Petitioner has not been given an opportunity of hearing
to lead his evidence in support of his stand nor has
been allowed to cross-examine the witness examined
on 07.10.2023, it is the view of this Court that, the
impugned order cannot sustain legal scrutiny and
accordingly is not sustainable in the eye of law.
8.5. Therefore, while quashing the impugned order
dtd.29.11.2025 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 in
FCC No.460 of 2010, this Court directs the Committee
to dispose of the matter from the stage of receipt of the
report on proclamation and by following the provisions
contained under Rule-7(15) to 7(20) of the Rules. This
Court directs the Committee to dispose of the matter so
directed within a period of four (4) months from the
date of receipt of this order.
8.6. Petitioner is directed to appear before Opposite
Party No.3 along with a copy of this order on
26.03.2026. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel is also
directed to provide a copy of this order on or before
Opposite Party No.3 for compliance.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
Digitally Signed (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Judge
Date: 18-Mar-2026 18:04:19
