Bikram Bhoi Vs Revenue Divisional Commissioner(North Division)

Heard Mr. S.K. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.

¶17

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 13.08.2014 passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur under Annexure-1, in pursuance of the order dated 24.06.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2751 of 2014, W.P.(C) No.2752 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No.2753 of 2014 filed by Tuna Bhoi, Kulamani Bhoi and the petitioner and others respectively.

¶18

Mr. S.K. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that so far as the petitioner-Bikram Bhoi in W.P.(C) No.2752 of 2014 is concerned, this Court directed the authority to consider the case of the petitioner with regard to employment. But the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur has passed order to the following effect:-

¶19

“The other co-petitioners namely Bikram Bhoi, S/o Kulamani Bhoi at the time of enumeration was a minor. He was only 14 years of old as on the cut-off date. Hence,

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

his claim is also rejected.”

¶22

It is contended that Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur has passed order rejecting the claim of the petitioner and, as such, no reason has been assigned while passing the order impugned. Therefore, the order so passed by the authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

¶23

Mr. B. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that the writ petition has suffered from delay and laches, as the order impugned under Annexure-1 was passed on 13.08.2014, but the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 01.09.2021 after long lapse of more than six years. Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Apart from the same, reliance is placed by the petitioner on the birth certificate, which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, but the same has been issued by the authority on 22.09.2014 after disposal of the grievance of the petitioner, i.e., in pursuance of the order dated 24.06.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2752 of 2014. Therefore, the birth certificate which has been relied upon by the petitioner is an after thought because the order was passed on 13.08.2014 and the certificate was issued on 22.09.2014. Thereby, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as he has not come to the Court with clean hands.

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the undisputed fact being that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.2752 of 2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.06.2014 directing the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur to consider his grievance and in compliance of the same, the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur has analogously heard the matter with Tuna Bhoi, Kulamani Bhoi and the petitioner in relation to W.P.(C) No.2751 of 2014, W.P.(C) No.2752 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No.2753 of 2014 and passed the order impugned on 13.08.2014 under Annexure-1. So

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, the Revenue Divisional Commissioner stated that the petitioner was of 14 years, as on the cut-off date, and therefore, his case was not considered for any compassionate appointment under R&R benefits and, as such, rejected the claim of the petitioner. Contention has been raised that though certain documents were relied upon by the petitioner, but the Revenue Divisional Commissioner has not taken into consideration the same. But fact remains, the birth certificate relied upon by the petitioner which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition was issued on 22.09.2014 and, as such, the order impugned was passed on 13.08.2014. Therefore, the petitioner could not have produced the same before the authority while the matter was heard on 13.08.2014. Thereby, the document on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner, has been subsequently procured by him after disposal of the matter by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner. Apart from the same, the order impugned having been passed on 13.08.2014 and the petitioner having approached this Court at a belated stage, i.e., on 01.09.2021 after more than six years, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶27

Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶28

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

¶29

Ashok

¶30

(G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 07-May-2024 15:48:11

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Bikram Bhoi v. Revenue Divisional Commissioner(North Division)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikram Bhoi v. Revenue Divisional Commissioner(North Division)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md.Iqubal Vs Commnr.,Kendriya Vid

Srinibash Maity Vs State of Odisha

R.Mohan Das Ajaya Kumar Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Aftab Ali, Jharsuguda Vs Dy. Commnr. GST and Central Excise, Jharsuguda

Ranjan Ku.Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Maheswar Mahanta Vs State of Odisha