Disposed¶19

Manas Kumar Sahu v. Union of India

Orissa HC9 Aug 2024WP(C)/17080/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; W.P. (C) No. 17080 of 2024; Justice R.K. Pattanaik; order dated 09.08.2024; petitioner Manas Kumar Sahu (counsel P.K.Chand) versus Union of India & others (P.K.Parhi, DSGI, and Babita Sahu, CGC); challenge to penalty order Annexure-10 and appellate order Annexure-12; relegated to alternate remedy of revision under Rule 219 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987; writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach revisional authority; six-week disposal direction; no cases cited; no monetary quantum.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the revisional authority against Annexure-12, with a direction that any such revision filed as per the Rules shall be entertained and disposed of preferably within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶19

Manas Kumar Sahu Vs Union of India — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P. (C) No. 17080 of 2024

¶3

Manas Kumar S a hu …. P e titioner

¶4

Mr. P.K.Chand, A d vocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

Union of India & others

¶7

others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K.Parhi, DSGI along with Ms. Babita Sahu

¶8

COR A M: MR. J USTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

Order No.

09.08.2024

1. This matter is taken up through virtual mode.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and M r. Parhi, learned DSGI along with Ms. Sahu, learned CGC appeari n g for the opposite parties .

¶14

Instant w rit petition is filed by the petitioner chall e nging the impugned order s under Annexures-10 & 12.

¶15

Before commencement of hearing, Mr. Parhi, lea r ned DSGI appearing for Union of India would submit that as against the order under Annexur e -12, revision lies as per Rule 219 of th e Railway Protection Forc e Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred as th e ‘Rules’), hence, therefor e , the petitioner should approach the concerned authority challe n ging the impugned decision.

¶16

Since penalty was imposed vide Annexure-10 an d the same was challenged by the petitioner in appeal and it stood disposed of vide Annexure-1 2 , whereby, the petitioner is aggrieved but in view of Rule 219 of th e Rules, he is required to approach the revisional

¶17

Pag e 1 of 2

¶18

authority instea d . In other words, the Court is of the vie w that the petitioner is to approach the authority concerned in vi e w of the alternate remed y by way of revision available to him as per the Rules.

¶19

Conse q uently, the writ petition stands disposed o f with the liberty granted in favour of the petitioner to approach the revisional authority against Annexure-12 for a disposal according to law. It is further directed that in the event any such revision is filed as per the Rules, it shall be entertained by the concerned authority an d disposed of as soon as po s sible preferably within a period of six wee k s from the date of receipt o f a copy of this order.

¶20

A certified copy of the order be issued as per rules.

¶21

Kabita

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 12-Aug-2024 21:12:55

¶24

P a ge 2 of 2

Manas Kumar Sahu v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manas Kumar Sahu v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabodh Kumar Samal Vs State of Odisha

Rajkishore Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Hitakshi Sarangi Vs State of Odisha

Bipra Ranjan Beura Vs State of Odisha

Dibakar@Kalu@Kalia Dalei Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha