Dismissed

Manaranjan Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Apr 2023WP(C)/463/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the writ petition is academic as an enquiry report had already been submitted by the Enquiry Officer under the government letter. The petitioner was directed to approach the appropriate forum for any further grievance, and the petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of as academic; no direction for a fresh enquiry was granted.

Manaranjan Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 463 OF 2023

¶2

Manaranjan Sahu …. Petitioner

¶3

Mr. Swarup Kumar Pattnaik, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha and others

¶6

…. Opp. Parties Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

12.04.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

The Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction to the Block Development Officer, Rasgovindpur Block, Mayurbhanj-Opposite Party No.3 to implement the direction imparted to him vide Letter No.21671 dated 9^th December, 2021 (Annexure-1) by the Joint Secretary-cum-FAA, Panchayati Raj and D.W. Department.

¶14

It is submitted by Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner that alleging fraud played by Opposite Party No.4, namely, the PIO in the BDO office, the Petitioner had made a grievance before the grievance cell of Chief Minister. Considering his grievance, the Joint Secretary-cum-FAA vide his letter No.21671 dated 9^th December, 2021 under Annexure-1 communicated Opposite Party No.3 as under:

¶15

“To

¶16

The BDO, Rasgovindapur Block, Mayurbhanj.

¶17

Sub:- Grievance petition of Sri Manoranjan Sahu received from the O/o the Chief Minister against

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

the PIOs of all Panchayat Offices under Rasgovindapur Block, Mayurbhanj.

¶21

Sir,

¶22

Referring to the aforesaid subject, I am to enclose herewith a self explanatory Grievance Petition of Sri Manoranjan Sahu received from the O/o. the Chief Minister and to request you to please enquire into the matter giving due scope to the applicant (Sri Sahu) and take appropriate action against the erring persons, if found guilty, and submit your report to the Office of the Chief Minister directly extending copy of the same to the petitioner and this Department for further course of action.

¶23

This may be treated as MOST URGENT.

¶24

Joint Secretary-cum-FAA”

¶25

Although the instruction was given to make an enquiry and to submit a report to the office of the Chief Minister directly, but no action was taken on the same. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

¶26

Referring to the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3, Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that although an enquiry is alleged to have been made pursuant to the letter under Annexure-1, but the Petitioner was not given any scope to participate in the said enquiry. Further the person, against whom the allegations were made, had conducted the enquiry as it reveals from the report appended to Annexure-A/3. Thus, the enquiry conducted is perfunctory and is an eye wash only. Further, the grievance of the Petitioner as under Annexure-2 has not been redressed in the said enquiry report. He, therefore, prays for a direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to conduct a fresh enquiry in terms of Annexure-1 and to submit a report to the office of the Chief Minister.

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

// 3 //

¶29

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that pursuant to the direction contend under Annexure-1, an enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer-cum-PIO, Rasgovindapur Block. The Petitioner does not challenge the said enquiry report in this writ petition. Since the instruction/direction under Annexure-1 has already been worked out, if the Petitioner has any grievance he may redress the same in appropriate forum. As the enquiry report has already been submitted pursuant to Annexure-1, the writ petition has become infructuous.

¶30

Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that pursuant to the letter under Annexure-1, enquiry report has already been submitted by the Enquiry Officer-cum-PIO, Rasgovindapur Block. Apparently, the Petitioner has a grievance against the said enquiry report. Since the enquiry report pursuant to Annexure-1 has already been submitted, the writ petition has become academic. However, if the Petitioner has any further grievance, he may workout the same at appropriate quarter in accordance with law.

¶31

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶32

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶33

¶34

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶35

Page 3 of 3

Manaranjan Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manaranjan Sahu v. State of Odisha

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

Lord Sri Jagannath Vs Raghunath Samal

D.Gitanjali Dora Vs D.Nityananda Dora

Bidulata Swain Vs Principal Secy., to Govt. of Odisha

Sujit Ku.Sahoo Vs Subhashree Sahoo

Panchami Singh Vs Registrar, District Judge Court, Baripada

Tarun Kumar Mohapatra Vs Sarmistha Das