Gb of Prasannamani College of Physical Education and Yoga,Tigiria Vs State of Orissa

2. Heard Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State and Mr. K.K. Jena, learned counsel for O.P. Nos.3 and 4. None appeared for O.P. Nos.5 and 6 when the matter was called.

¶16

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 17.03.2015 so passed by the Govt.-O.P. No.1 under Annexure-5. Vide the said

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

order, claim raised by O.P. No.6 in W.P.(C) No.21787 of 2014 was taken up with passing of the impugned order in question.

¶19

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that O.P. No.6 approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.21787 of 2014 with a prayer to direct the Opp. Parties to revoke/withdraw the recognition and affiliation extended in favour of the petitioner-College to prosecute B.P.Ed. course.

¶20

4. 1. It is contended that this Court vide order dated 18.12.2014 while disposing the Writ Petition, directed O.P. No.1 to consider the grievance made by O.P. No.6 vide his grievance petition dated 22.10.2014 in accordance with law and by giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties. Order passed by this Court on 18.12.2014 reads as follows:-

¶21

“Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.

¶22

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the opposite parties to revoke/withdraw the recognition and affiliation to B.P.Ed. course in Prasannamani College of Physical Education & Yoga, Tigiria on the ground that the same has been made in contravention of the provisions of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1989 and in violation of the order of this Court dated 01.05.1991 passed in O.J.C. No.1239 of 1991.

¶23

Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State submits that revocation/withdrawal of recognition to a particular course of the college is within the domain of the State Authorities and if the

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

petitioner is so aggrieved, he can approach the State authorities instead of invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶27

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner has already moved the opposite party no.1 vide Annexure-3 dated 22.10.2014, which is pending for consideration. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing the opposite party no.1 to take a decision on the representation vide Annexure-3 dated 22.10.2014 on its own merit in accordance with law. While disposing such representation, the opposite party no.1 shall give opportunity of hearing to all the parties.

¶28

Let a copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition with all its enclosures be communicated to opposite party no.1.”

¶29

4 .2. It is contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, petitioner was noticed and on 17.03.2015, a prayer was made on behalf of the petitioner to allow some time for hearing of the case. But O.P. No.1 without accepting such prayer, heard the matter and dispose of the same vide the impugned order dated 17.03.2015 under Annexure-5 with a direction to revoke the permission accorded in favour of the petitioner-college for pursuing B.P.Ed. course.

¶30

4 .3. It is the main contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that since in the earlier Writ Petition a direction was issued to O.P. No.1 to give opportunity of hearing to all concerned, without giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the matter could not have been disposed of vide the impugned order.

¶31

Page 3 of 6

¶32

// 4 //

¶33

4 .4. It is also contended that on 17.03.2015 which was the first date of hearing, though a prayer was made to allow some time, but the same was not acceded to and the matter was heard and disposed of vide the impugned order. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order since has been passed in violation of the earlier order passed by this Court on dated 18.12.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 21787 of 2014, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶34

5 . Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken by O.P. No.1 in the counter affidavit so filed. It is contended that after receipt of the order passed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition, the petitioner was duly noticed and the matter was heard on 17.03.2015 with passing of the order in question.

¶35

5 .1. It is contended that since in terms of the earlier order, petitioner was duly noticed and no reply whatsoever was filed, the prayer for adjournment was rightly rejected. Since in order to dispose of the matter within the time stipulated by this Court in its earlier order, O.P. No.1 took up the issue with passing of the order dated 17.03.2015, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order passed by O.P. No.1 under Annexure-5. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order needs no interference.

¶36

Page 4 of 6

¶37

// 5 //

¶38

6 . Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that seeking revocation of the permission accorded in favour of the Petitioner-College to pursue B.P.Ed. course, Writ Petition in W.P.(C) No.21787 of 2014 was filed by O.P. No.6. This Court vide order dated 18.12.2014, directed O.P. No.1 to take a decision by giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. As found from the impugned order and after receipt of the order from this Court, first date of hearing was fixed to 11.03.2015. On the said date, PetitionerCollege appeared through an employee and prayer was made to adjourn the matter till 05.05.2015. But as found from the impugned order, the same was not allowed and the matter was heard and the impugned order was passed on the very same date.

¶39

6 .1. Since pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.21787 of 2014, the first date of hearing was fixed to 11.03.2015 and on that date a prayer was made to allow some further time, as per the considered view of this Court, the same should have been allowed by O.P. No.1. Since in terms of the earlier order due opportunity of hearing was not given by O.P. No.1 prior to passing of the impugned order, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶40

6 .2. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order

¶41

Page 5 of 6

¶42

// 6 //

¶43

dated 17.03.2015 so passed by O.P. No.1 under Annexure-5. While quashing the same, this Court directs O.P. No.1 to take a fresh decision in the light of the direction issued by this Court W.P.(C) No.21787 of 2014, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order. In order to shorten the delay, petitioner is directed to appear before O.P. No.1 along with a copy of this order on 20.12.2024. On receipt of the order, O.P. No.1 shall take effective steps for disposal of the matter as directed.

¶44

7 . The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶45

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶46

Basudev

¶47

Signature Not Verified

¶48

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-Dec-2024 13:37:11

¶49

Page 6 of 6

Gb of Prasannamani College of Physical Education and Yoga,Tigiria v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gb of Prasannamani College of Physical Education and Yoga,Tigiria v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Dillip

Muralidhar Mahar Vs State

Dr. Mamata Manjari Panda Vs State of Odisha

Ratnakar Das Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Durga Prasad Mohanty Vs State of Odisha