Partly allowed

Ladu Kishore Sahu v. Odisha State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.

Orissa HC14 Dec 2021WP(C)/16953/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa quashed an order forfeiting a security deposit due to lack of reasoning and facts. The court directed the respondent to pass a reasoned order within three weeks by properly considering the petitioner's reply to the show-cause.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order forfeiting the security deposit and directed the respondent to pass a reasoned order within three weeks after considering the petitioner's reply.

Ladu Kishore Sahu Vs Odisha State Road… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.16953 of 2015 (Through hybrid mode)

¶3

Ladu Kishore Sahu

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Lalatendu Samantay, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Odisha State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. and others

¶8

…. Opposite parties

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

ORDER

Order No.

14.12.2021

Mr. Samantaray, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client’s grievance is against office order dated 31^st December, 2010, whereby there was forfeiture of entire security amount against adjustment of outstanding sale proceeds and forfeiture of balance amount.

¶15

On query from Court, he draws attention to his client’s letter dated 6^th October, 2011, inter alia, in reference to show-cause dated 7^th June, 2010, issued upon him.

¶16

Mr. Samantaray, submits, his client was outsourcing agent in respect of the transport undertaking. As stated in his client’s said letter, wretched condition buses were given to his client for plying on the route. On date of incident there was heavy rain and passengers and luggage in the bus got drenched. There was commotion created by the passengers, who also resorted to vandalism. This was by

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

reason of condition of the bus. Personnel of opposite parties made counter allegation against his client. In the circumstances, his client wanted to obtain refund of his security deposit and out standings, in discontinuing his services.

¶20

None appears on behalf of opposite parties. Noting in the order-sheet says notice on opposite party nos.2 and 3 served and opposite party no.2 had entered appearance.

¶21

5. Text of impugned order is reproduced below:-

¶22

“Shri Ladu Kishore Sahu At/-Bani Bihar Main Road Aska Dist. Ganjam was allowed to operate Bhanjanagar-Sunabeda service on charter for one year for which he has deposited Rs.80,906/- towards security amount and executed agreement with OSRTC to abide by the rules and regulations. On 06.06.2010 Sri Gyana Ranjan Sahu S/o- Sri Ladu Kishore Sahu has misbehaved the D.T.M. and other employees inside the office and also tried to damage the table and almirah for which F.I.R. was lodged in the police Station.

¶23

Sri Ladu Kishore Sahu was asked to explain such activities violating the conditions of agreement and he was not allowed to operate the service from 06.06.10.

¶24

The Facts stated by Sri Sahu is totally false and fabricated and also denied by the Unit Officer, Bhanjanagar, as such the charge framed against his son is proved.

¶25

It is ordered that the outstanding sale proceedings against Sri Sahu, outsourcing agent for Rs.21,302/- is adjusted from the security amount and the balance amount for Rs.59,604/- (Rupees Fifty nine thousand six hundred four) only is forfeited.”

¶26

Impugned office order does not show as to what were the facts stated by petitioner. Neither does it say why such facts are totally false or fabricated. What is important is, it does not even mention how

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

// 3 //

¶29

the charge was to be proved. So far as the incident is concerned, some illumination is available from petitioner’s said reply to the showcause. Impugned order does not furnish any reason whatsoever. It is set aside and quashed.

¶30

Opposite party no.2 will deal with petitioner’s said reply to the show-cause properly, with reference to terms and conditions of the agreement, for ascertaining as to what happened on 6^th December, 2010 and pass reasoned order. This must be done within three weeks of communication of this order.

¶31

Prasant

¶32

The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Ladu Kishore Sahu v. Odisha State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ladu Kishore Sahu v. Odisha State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soumendra Kumar Panda Vs Snigdha Suhani Kar

Artatrana Mishra Vs Executive Officer

Anukul Chandra Rout Vs Prativa Manjari Sahoo

Ganesh K.Bramha Vs Bpcl and Ors.

Urmila Suhasaria Vs Cda,Cuttack

Abani Kumar Baag Vs Monalisa Mohanty