Single judge allowed the appeal as it was covered by a previous bench order in a related matter, directing the same relief therein.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of with the same directions as given in ARBA no.2 of 2019 (Gadadhar Pal v. Union of India and others).
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ARBA No.14 of 2014
(Through hybrid mode)
…. Pravakar Dey & others Appellants
Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India and another
…. Respondents
Mr. S.S. Kashyap, Advocate (CGC)
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
ORDER 12.07.2022
Order No.
4. 1. Mr. Bose, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellants and submits, his client’s contention and the appeal is covered by order dated 11th March, 2022 made by this Bench in ARBA no.2 of 2019 (Gadadhar Pal v. Union of India and others).
2. Mr. Kashyap, learned advocate, Central Government
Counsel appears on behalf of respondents and submits, the appeal stands so covered.
3. Impugned judgment dated 11th November, 2013 is set
aside in appeal as covered by order dated 11th March, 2022 (supra). Same directions are made in this appeal as in said order.
Page 1 of 1
// 2 //
Sks
4. The appeal is allowed and disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal is covered by the earlier order in ARBA no.2 of 2019 (Gadadhar Pal v. Union of India and others) shouldBe allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gadadhar Pal v. Union of India and othersFollowed¶13
ARBA no.2 of 2019 (Gadadhar Pal v. Union of India and others)
Pravakar Dey & others
Union of India
Arindam Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
