Prabhat Naik Vs Collector, Puri

The petitioner, a member of Scheduled Caste community worked as Sweeper on daily wage basis under the establishment of Collectorate, Puri with utmost sincerity from 1999 to 2018. Even after serving the Collectorate office for a long period as no step was taken by the authority concerned, by letter dated 05.10.2015 the petitioner approached the Nodal Officer for consideration of his regularisation in service. Still then as no action was taken, the opposite party no.2-Deputy Collector, Puri without affording opportunity of hearing stopped the wages and did not allow the petitioner to work with effect from 16.08.2018 on the ground “no sufficient funds are available”. The petitioner thereafter approached the opposite party no.1- Collector, Puri by furnishing representation dated 17.08.2018 but to no avail. The petitioner then made several approaches by filing representation on different dates.

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

Consequently, the petitioner came up before this Court by way of filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No.32539 of 2020, which was disposed of on 07.12.2020 with a direction to take a decision on the representations filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate order within period stipulated therein. Since there was non-compliance, the petitioner was constrained to bring it to the notices of this Court by way of a contempt petition, being CONTC No.2329 of 2021. Said contempt petition came to be disposed of on 07.12.2020 with an observation to comply said order within further time granted.

¶18

Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that notwithstanding such clear direction from this Court to comply with the order dated 07.12.2020, the Authority concerned failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice by affording the petitioner a personal hearing. Consequently, the District Magistrate & Collector, Puri has rejected representation an order vide Memo No.1254/BBE. dated 11.06.2021. He also vehemently contended that it is an essential facet of principles of natural justice for any authority even Administrative Authority to afford opportunity for personal hearing when such Authority takes a decision adverse to the claim of the petitioner.

¶19

Mr. S.N. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that it is by now well settled that there is no requirement of extending opportunity of personal hearing in each and every case. Such affording of personal hearing depends on facts and circumstances. As the present case does not warrant personal hearing, the authority is justified in not granting opportunity of personal hearing.

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 31.08.2024, he filed an I.A. bearing No. 11690 of 2024, enclosing copy of notice bearing No.2598 dated 21.08.2024 issued by Collector, Puri instructing the petitioner to appear in person on 28.08.2024. It is submitted that on 28.08.2024, no hearing was conducted by the Collector.

¶22

Mr. S.N. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel has not objected to issue of such notice dated 21.08.2024. 7. In view of aforesaid circumstance, since the opposite party no.1-Collector, Puri has issued notice for affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, the order in Memo dated 11.06.2021 vide Annexure-5 is hereby set aside and the opposite party no.1-Collector, Puri is directed to reconsider the grievance of the petitioner by affording opportunity of personal hearing and taking into consideration the representations already submitted by the petitioner as enclosed to the writ petition.

¶23

For the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner is directed to appear before the opposite party no.1-Collector, Puri along with a comprehensive representation and a copy of this order on or before 20.09.2024. On such appearance of the petitioner before the Collector along with the documents stated above, the opposite party no.1-Collector, Puri shall fix a date of personal hearing and proceed with the case. On taking decision, he shall pass appropriate order within four weeks from the date of personal hearing and communicate the petitioner within a period of fifteen days thereafter.

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit of the case.

¶26

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition and the I.A. stand disposed of.

¶27

Aswini

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-in-charge) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTA CK Date: 02-Sep-2024 18:53:51

¶30

Page 4 of 4

Prabhat Naik v. Collector, Puri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhat Naik v. Collector, Puri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brajendra Kishore Roy Vs State of Odisha

Gouranga Charan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Sibaram Maharana Vs State of Odisha

Surendra Kumar Sahoo Vs the Commnr. Cum Secry., Information and Pr Dept.

Bikash Ranjan Mohanty Vs the Commnr. Cum Secry., Information and Pr Dept.

Ashok Baliarsingh Vs the Commnr. Cum Secy., Information and Pr Dept.